LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[Torrocca]

>The CNT has continuously lasted uninterrupted for 108 years

Only ruled a society for three, and ended its tenure miserably so

>Sarvodaya Shramadana has lasted uninterrupted for 60 years
>EZLN have lasted for 25 years
>The original Soviets lasted for 17 years
>The Stapleton Colony has lasted for 97 years
>cobalt-60's halflife is 5.28 years
>MFW

All of these movements didn't turn a large-scope society into anarchism for a period longer than 5.28 years.

Sounds to me like you're shifting goalposts at this point to try and conjure up an argument from the scraps of your previous one. :^3

[Great Minarchistan]

Only ruled a society for three, and ended its tenure miserably so

All of these movements didn't turn a large-scope society into anarchism for a period longer than 5.28 years.

Sounds to me like you're shifting goalposts at this point to try and conjure up an argument from the scraps of your previous one. :^3

My primary argument was specifically regarding the extremely low lifespan of large-scope anarchist societies, you were the one that magically shifted the topic for the lifespan of movements/parties

[Torrocca]

Sounds to me like you're shifting goalposts at this point to try and conjure up an argument from the scraps of your previous one. :^3

My primary argument was specifically regarding the extremely low lifespan of large-scope anarchist societies, you were the one that magically shifted the topic for the lifespan of movements/parties

The post I was responding to made no clarification on the specific scale of these societies, so you're entirely wrong there. :^)

[Great Minarchistan]

My primary argument was specifically regarding the extremely low lifespan of large-scope anarchist societies, you were the one that magically shifted the topic for the lifespan of movements/parties

The post I was responding to made no clarification on the specific scale of these societies, so you're entirely wrong there. :^)

I'm not wrong, I just stepped into a shady territory since the nature of the size of these societies (nil considering movements such as the CNT that only ruled catalonia for three years, not 108) remains unspecified by you

[Torrocca]

The post I was responding to made no clarification on the specific scale of these societies, so you're entirely wrong there. :^)

I'm not wrong, I just stepped into a shady territory since the nature of the size of these societies (nil considering movements such as the CNT that only ruled catalonia for three years, not 108) remains unspecified by you

I don't need to specify their size to prove they're still succeeding as movements or societies. :^)

[Great Minarchistan]

I'm not wrong, I just stepped into a shady territory since the nature of the size of these societies (nil considering movements such as the CNT that only ruled catalonia for three years, not 108) remains unspecified by you

I don't need to specify their size to prove they're still succeeding as movements or societies. :^)

Hence your argument is completely disconnected to mine [which specifically referred to large-scope anarchist societies] and therefore it doesn't count as a reply from yours

[Torrocca]

I don't need to specify their size to prove they're still succeeding as movements or societies. :^)

Hence your argument is completely disconnected to mine [which specifically referred to large-scope anarchist societies] and therefore it doesn't count as a reply from yours

Except you still never referred to large-scale societies specifically as I can note in the text of the post I responded to with those given examples. :^)

[Great Minarchistan]

Hence your argument is completely disconnected to mine [which specifically referred to large-scope anarchist societies] and therefore it doesn't count as a reply from yours

Except you still never referred to large-scale societies specifically as I can note in the text of the post I responded to with those given examples. :^)

Edited for addendum :^)

[Torrocca]

Except you still never referred to large-scale societies specifically as I can note in the text of the post I responded to with those given examples. :^)

Edited for addendum :^)

Sorry, too late to change your argument after the fact. :^)

[Great Minarchistan]

Edited for addendum :^)

Sorry, too late to change your argument after the fact. :^)

You have no ammo to back the fact that no large-scope anarchist society survived for more than 5.28 years, right?

[Libertarian Communist Planets]

The Great Depression was created by the Federal Reserve (truthfully, even Bernanke admitted it), a central bank of which had values [and was created by someone] averse to classical liberalism. Truthfully, classical liberalism died by around 1913-17 with the combined effect of the Fed and the US' intervention in WW1 that led to a massive scale-up in the government's scope.

Sorry, but I don't buy into Fed conspiracies.

[Libertarian Communist Planets]

It was possible to be a Lamarckian and believe in Social Darwinism, but loads of Social Darwinists (such as the Nazis) rejected Lamarckism because it challenged their central dogma of immutable races.

The arguable founder of the misnamed Social Darwinism was Herbert Spencer. He was a Lamarckian.

Edit: However, yes, many later Social Darwinists were not Lamarckians.

[Torrocca]

Sorry, too late to change your argument after the fact. :^)

You have no ammo to back the fact that no large-scope anarchist society survived for more than 5.28 years, right?

Define "large-scale" first. :^)

[Kubra]

what about india

India was probably the most affected, indeed. But then again, the caste system (huge hamper to social mobility and growth of the society) was already present in there for centuries before the English.

sure, India had a caste system, but even a rigidly stratified society has an economy, relatively "free" trade, at least on the circulation of goods between other nations. Castes are terrible, but I'd wager so is turning a country into a captive market for expensive British goods.

[Conserative Morality]

sure, India had a caste system, but even a rigidly stratified society has an economy, relatively "free" trade, at least on the circulation of goods between other nations. Castes are terrible, but I'd wager so is turning a country into a captive market for expensive British goods.

The idea that market societies are natural is purely a Western invention because the market is so inbuilt into us that we can hardly conceive of a society absent it.

[Kubra]

sure, India had a caste system, but even a rigidly stratified society has an economy, relatively "free" trade, at least on the circulation of goods between other nations. Castes are terrible, but I'd wager so is turning a country into a captive market for expensive British goods.

The idea that market societies are natural is purely a Western invention because the market is so inbuilt into us that we can hardly conceive of a society absent it.

well sure, but it's a bit easier to talk to a guy with common lingo than to start off doing currency conversions into standard commodity units
Can't go off the deep end right away, that comes later.

[Conserative Morality]

The idea that market societies are natural is purely a Western invention because the market is so inbuilt into us that we can hardly conceive of a society absent it.

well sure, but it's a bit easier to talk to a guy with common lingo than to start off doing currency conversions into standard commodity units
Can't go off the deep end right away, that comes later.

No, not a system of common currency, a market economy. Market economies include widespread barter without currency. Feudal style economies are more based on class reciprocation, responsibilities, contracts, and coercion rather than prices, supply and demand, and free exchange.

[Kubra]

well sure, but it's a bit easier to talk to a guy with common lingo than to start off doing currency conversions into standard commodity units
Can't go off the deep end right away, that comes later.

No, not a system of common currency, a market economy. Market economies include widespread barter without currency. Feudal style economies are more based on class reciprocation, responsibilities, contracts, and coercion rather than prices, supply and demand, and free exchange.

well sure, but if ones talking about periods of history where currencies existed and wear counted, it's kinda beneficial to bring em up, even if you have to prephrase with "oh but btw value is an expression of socially necessary labour time, and not necessarily expressible in pound sterling"

[Conserative Morality]

well sure, but if ones talking about periods of history where currencies existed and wear counted, it's kinda beneficial to bring em up, even if you have to prephrase with "oh but btw value is an expression of socially necessary labour time, and not necessarily expressible in pound sterling"

That's just the thing - value isn't freely exchangeable in such societies. Commodities are largely non-fungible insofar as exchange is concerned. As a concept, value is considerably less useful when considering the economic structures of such societies, as absurd as that may seem to our modern and Westernized eyes, because the economics of such societies are primarily couched in the intricacies of social and legal stability rather than in the desires or demands of entities; individuals or organizations.

[Carl Hasty]

...and the result of those nations was outstanding. France, the UK and the US (to list the ones off the top of my head) flourished their culture and their economy during the period at which classical liberalism was prevalent.

Largely at the expense of other societies which have yet to recover from the plunder.

That plunder was the result of competing nationalism not classical liberalism. The protected markets of Europe lead to the likes of Britain and France colonizing Africa and other places rather than trading with each other.

[Kubra]

well sure, but if ones talking about periods of history where currencies existed and wear counted, it's kinda beneficial to bring em up, even if you have to prephrase with "oh but btw value is an expression of socially necessary labour time, and not necessarily expressible in pound sterling"

That's just the thing - value isn't freely exchangeable in such societies. Commodities are largely non-fungible insofar as exchange is concerned. As a concept, value is considerably less useful when considering the economic structures of such societies, as absurd as that may seem to our modern and Westernized eyes, because the economics of such societies are primarily couched in the intricacies of social and legal stability rather than in the desires or demands of entities; individuals or organizations.

well sure, but a decline in processed goods, heavy internal taxation, and heavy tariffs for all imports but British ones are what they are, no matter how one expresses theoretically the structure of economic thought.
I'm sorry CM, but I don't understand where you're going with this, and I'm kinda too piqued to let it go. Could you state from the top, an explain the consequences of such on british-indian economic relations?

[Torrocca]

Largely at the expense of other societies which have yet to recover from the plunder.

That plunder was the result of competing nationalism not classical liberalism. The protected markets of Europe lead to the likes of Britain and France colonizing Africa and other places rather than trading with each other.

Ah, yes, because it can never be the fault of shitty economic practices for the existence of shitty economic practices.

[Carl Hasty]

That plunder was the result of competing nationalism not classical liberalism. The protected markets of Europe lead to the likes of Britain and France colonizing Africa and other places rather than trading with each other.

Ah, yes, because it can never be the fault of shitty economic practices for the existence of shitty economic practices.

No, protectionism caused colonization.

[Kowani]

Ah, yes, because it can never be the fault of shitty economic practices for the existence of shitty economic practices.

No, protectionism caused colonization.

Add white man’s burden and imperialism while you’re at it.

[Bakery Hill]

There's no pipeline because there is no difference, and this is a good thing.

"No difference between left-libertarianism and left-authoritarianism." Are you sure, you want to go with that, because, not only is it factually wrong, but it will give anti-Socialists ammo to critique you.

I don't particularly if other people want to operate with this false way of thinking.