# what political ideology makes most sense to you?



## black

any particular sub-set?


----------



## OutsideYourWorld

I think humans fuck up everything we are given. We are so young and still working out our issues. Hell, religion is still a thing in the majority of humans' minds. 

I think at some point in the future we have the potential to be happy and peaceful with or without a government (and pros and cons coming with each).. But for now, we just have to struggle through our infancy.


----------



## AnOldHope

OutsideYourWorld said:


> I think humans fuck up everything we are given. We are so young and still working out our issues. Hell, religion is still a thing in the majority of humans' minds.
> 
> I think at some point in the future we have the potential to be happy and peaceful with or without a government (and pros and cons coming with each).. But for now, we just have to struggle through our infancy.



Unfortunately, much like Tribbles or my cousins in Michigan, we were sort of born pregnant, and will create our Children while still in our own infancy. 

It's like Dr. Who goes on Jerry Springer...."Cash me out of time..."


----------



## Shwillam

I stand mostly by anarchist communism. However I'm quite fluid and have drawn beliefs from other ideologies as well


----------



## A New Name

The Rojava revolution resulted in a stateless government, built down-top. An anarchist solution (this is, free from the power imperative and based on rationality and trust) to the organisation of a large number of individuals. Amazing, I know. Also impossible according to many so called anarchists.
Government is not necessarily the same as a State, or any form of vertical (Submission / coercion) hierarchy.


----------



## syrinyx

OutsideYourWorld said:


> I think humans fuck up everything we are given. We are so young and still working out our issues. Hell, religion is still a thing in the majority of humans' minds.



No reason to alienate people of faith here, friend, scant as they may be.


----------



## OutsideYourWorld

I don't see how stating my opinion is necessarily alienating anyone. Limiting what we say because it might alienate or offend people is a bit silly when it comes to talking about "bigger things" like this. As long as you aren't trying to be an ass about it, that is.


----------



## todd

Classical Liberalism


----------



## black

> The Rojava revolution resulted in a stateless government, built down-top. An anarchist solution (this is, free from the power imperative and based on rationality and trust) to the organisation of a large number of individuals. Amazing, I know. Also impossible according to many so called anarchists.
> Government is not necessarily the same as a State, or any form of vertical (Submission / coercion) hierarchy.


I was pretty surprised to learn about Rojava I only found out about it like this last week. gives me some hope. an yeah I know that statism and government aren't the same thing, and can be separate. I feel p dumb not knowing about Rojava but I did sort of a little bit know about the activities of the YPG


----------



## black

OutsideYourWorld said:


> I don't see how stating my opinion is necessarily alienating anyone. Limiting what we say because it might alienate or offend people is a bit silly when it comes to talking about "bigger things" like this. As long as you aren't trying to be an ass about it, that is.


well in saying that humans still have religion because they are a young species that is pretty much alienating. it implies that religion is a result of not understanding the world. youre allowed to have that opinion but saying it doesn't alienate anyone is factually incorrect. I am a very religious pagan myself, specifically Fyrnsidu, and my religion is not a hindrance to my understanding but a pathway I have chosen that colors my understanding.


----------



## black

OutsideYourWorld said:


> I don't see how stating my opinion is necessarily alienating anyone. Limiting what we say because it might alienate or offend people is a bit silly when it comes to talking about "bigger things" like this. As long as you aren't trying to be an ass about it, that is.


while it is true that humans initially created myths and stories that evolved into religion as a way of understanding the physical world around them, it doesn't really apply to the modern world in most cases. even Christians usually, and I stress usually, believe in the generally accepted scientific explanation for the creation of the world, or some mixture of science and creationism. I accept atheism as a valid belief system or lack thereof. it is scientific and ground-level social initiatives that will save our world from the ever so sure destruction of climate change and capitalism and everything to do with it, not Thunor, the god of lightning, and thunder, and the common man but Thunor gives me the strength and inspiration to believe in myself and that the world can change.


----------



## OutsideYourWorld

black said:


> well in saying that humans still have religion because they are a young species that is pretty much alienating. it implies that religion is a result of not understanding the world. youre allowed to have that opinion but saying it doesn't alienate anyone is factually incorrect. I am a very religious pagan myself, specifically Fyrnsidu, and my religion is not a hindrance to my understanding but a pathway I have chosen that colors my understanding.



Well my intention wasn't to alienate, so apologies if anyone feels that way. It's difficult to convey exactly what you mean through purely text. 

I'm an agnostic myself, and do see (I guess I should specify organized) religion as something an infant race has to explain the unknown (and to control people). Anything another human says or believes should be scrutinized, and I more or less follow a scientific and logical way of reasoning things (which changes as science progresses of course). I like the Buddhist ideas of finding truth and strength from within. 

But that's a whole other conversation and one that isn't exactly right or wrong, so. I will leave it at that to try and not derail things here..


----------



## black

well I appreciate your input regardless of whether I disagree. I do understand your point of view and I appreciate you speaking with me.

I believe in anarcho-communism. I would like a horizontally organized, free society without any bodies of power in any form. large committees of regular citizens, hopefully all, would organize to accomplish community tasks and take care of business, while small communities and neighborhoods would function in a similar fashion with other areas of life taking a similar model, with everyone involved having an equal hand in bringing about changes and managing affairs.


----------



## black

and ofcourse that's a grossly oversimplified way of explaining it but im no organizer nor do I push to change society into what I believe it should be. I follow my selfish whims and do not wish to protest or sacrifice myself for any cause.


----------



## black

*al*though I definitely daydream of a better way of living. one where i wouldn't have to suffer medical issues due to being broke because a doctor wouldn't have to worry about being paid in the first place.


----------



## black

when it comes to believing in something like this, a belief system that's very much on the fringe, you always have to take what you can get. i don't know if i believe we could change the united states into a confederacy of autonomous anarchist unions. i doubt it will happen. but i wholeheartedly don't want to think that way. i want to think we could do it. that in the end before the statists and greedy fucks who own burger king give us paper cuts across our jugular with their dollar bills and stuff us full of McNuggies we could truly broadcast an honest, practical, and not-so-reluctantly unified solution to all of the problems our country has. regular folks who usually vote democrat would be satisfied by the general idea of social liberalism, being that there would be no laws whatsoever managing what any one person could do because of who they are. republican folks would in turn be satisfied by the same thing but more in the way that they would be able to organize their own little shut off libertarian communities without interference from the confederacy. it would be their business and theirs alone.


----------



## todd

mmmm chicken nuggets for social change. rise up against BBQ dipping sause !


----------



## black

cept the chicken nuggets from Save-A-Lot with the weird cheese in the middle


----------



## Shwillam

todd said:


> mmmm chicken nuggets for social change. rise up against BBQ dipping sause !



But...but...I like BBQ..


----------



## black

everyone knows buffalo is superior, but in the end red chili sauce will trump everything. the sause of good communists!


----------



## todd

sweet and sour !! because everyone needs a hug before a bullet to the brain.


----------



## Rob Nothing

All of the above.


----------



## wickedwench

I'm basically an anarcho-communist, though I'm very particularly inspired by Murray Bookchin's libertarian municipalism/Communalism from within that school of thought.


----------



## Mutualist

By my name I'm willing to guess most could figure out my preferred ideology. I think the economic system of a society should be a mixed market. Both pure Capitalism and Socialism have too much potential for abuse. To strike that economic balance and exist in a stateless self organized society is within our grasp.


----------



## Shwillam

So what is mutalism? (i don't believe its a word but I'll do a bit of research, more curious as to what your individual interputation of it is)


----------



## Shwillam

*Mutualism* is the way two organisms of _different_ species exist in a relationship in which each individual benefits from the activity of the other. Similar interactions _within_ a species are known as co-operation.

So this is a biological term? "Mixed market" is another term i have problems with. Just saying man, the pure definition of many of the words you use in your argument make such argument illogical.

EDIT: I've realized my mistake. Whoopsie


----------



## wickedwench

It's noy my cup of tea, but to help out, I believe @Mutualist means more like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)


----------



## Shwillam

Ah, I stand corrected. I was drunk last night for the first time in weeks, probably why I missed that lol


----------



## Shwillam

Seems to be an anarcho capitalist school of thought. Not my cup of tea either


----------



## black

yeah An-Caps just kind of seem to be under the delusion that capitalism isn't the backbone of the state in the first place. the abilitiy to gain more capital than your sisters and brothers inherently contradicts anarchism in pretty much every way.


----------



## Mutualist

Far from An-Cap. Mutualism actually goes back to Proudhon. All Anarchism starts there. Imagine if you are able Syndicals co-existing with small owner operator businesses in an open market. Now add in cooperative non-profit banking. No one able to own property beyond what they are currently using (by property I mean land, not your toothbrush) 

This really over simplifies Mutualism but it's a good starting place to get an idea. Two best real world examples I can give would be Freetown Christiana and Catalonia.


----------



## Hillbilly Castro

I'm an egoist. Max Stirner pretty much said it all, Nietzsche added significantly to it. There just isn't an adequate retort to the concept of spooks. When ideas take possession of an individual, her freedom has been trashed for the sake of a concept's cohesion alone. The egoist makes use of whatever is around her by whatever means are expedient; if I believe in something, it is because it suits me, and the moment it demands sacrifice from me, I cast it out. If someone seems worth rolling with, I roll with them - until it no longer suits me to do so. Factually speaking, the most concrete thing to any of us is that fact that we exist, and if we don't start here, we're probably reproducing a system of ideas that will enslave us. I'm anti-ideology, anti-society, anti-morality, and pro myself. Note that "pro-myself" means broadly and across time - it is egoistic to me to work with others.


----------



## wickedwench

Mutualist said:


> This really over simplifies Mutualism but it's a good starting place to get an idea. Two best real world examples I can give would be Freetown Christiana and Catalonia.



I might suggest that Freetown Christiana was a bit closer to AnCap than mutualist and that Catalonia was expressly an effort to be Anarcho-Syndicalist, not mutualist (though most left anarchists do try to "claim" Catalonia, don't we). However, I'm totally with you on the notion that it isn't the same as AnCap and that Proudhon is kind of the start of things (though I don't care for many of his ideas). A proper mutualist society hasn't really been tried to my recollection. To put it differently, I think of mutualists as comrades. A bit weird, but definitely comrades ;-)


----------



## Mutualist

only a bit weird? 

Yes, Catalonia is really the best we were able to do. While I agree that they tried to be Syndicalists they were forced to exist in the larger open capitalist market. That's why I see them as Mutualists. If they had become isolationists they could have been pure syndicalists but they chose to compete against Capitalists so a mixed market. But I can also understand how other isms claim them. Comrades to us all at the very least.


Freetown Christiana I see as more of a Mutualist society than AnCap due to their "common law" and nine rules. Far from the totally free market espoused by Anarcho-Capitalists the Residents of Christiana decided what the collective rules would be including the ban on hard drug sales.

However you are right, there has never been a true Mutualist society. Lacking the banking ideas Proudhon espoused it's hard to create the combination of artisans and syndicals that would make it a fully mixed market. Maybe one day, once our current society has fully collapsed under the weight of Capitalism, we will be able to properly create the varied experimental systems that have been proposed but have never had a chance to actually run to the point of discovering their actual flaws.


----------



## AlwaysLost

valar morghulis


----------



## blumerang

To me, a Libertarian society makes the most sense. Gov't as small as possible, with private sector running the "programs" as they better know the subtleties of their area and would be much more efficient. Drugs, Firearms, and Marriage (of any type) should be legal and Gov't should have no business in them. I feel like taxation is theft (similar to buying someone a car with their credit card without their permission) and the 16-25% that small businesses would save would create millions of jobs and cheaper products. Prior to the 1930's, the gov't was so small (and efficient) that it was funded on tariff alone, those roads still got built (by prisoners & small businesses). 
In a nutshell, I would rather put my faith in the individual than an 1 size fits all & all-encompassing gov't entity. Am I being idealistic? Eh, maybe...


----------



## blumerang

black said:


> any particular sub-set?


Communism ^^^ ? No thanks lol


----------



## black

blumerang said:


> Communism ^^^ ? No thanks lol


what would you say that communism is? what's your opinion on it? have you ever witness communism in practice?


----------



## blumerang

Communism is ceding my rights to another. In principle, it seems perfect but like any ideology, it's not that simple. And no, I haven't seen a commune. Jst heard the propaganda of USA public school. 

What are your thoughts on communism man?


----------



## blumerang

On a scale of Communism to Anarchy, I would lean hard to the right. I'm open to new ideas tho...


----------



## Hillbilly Castro

blumerang said:


> Communism is ceding my rights to another. In principle, it seems perfect but like any ideology, it's not that simple. And no, I haven't seen a commune. Jst heard the propaganda of USA public school.
> 
> What are your thoughts on communism man?



A number of things come to mind in reading this. I understand why you think this way and was at one point sympathetic to this view, however, my views changed for a number of reasons;

1. "Rights" are a social fiction. They are essentially wizardry based in metaphysics - a completely imaginary realm of thought. If I shoot someone, if they should say "but it is my right not to die" as I pull the trigger, not only will it not save them, the only way his "rights" affect me is if those who also believe in rights choose to enact force against me on his behalf, postmortem. Ergo, rights are strictly rooted in belief and have no real justification outside of belief. And so your only "rights" exist in force, whether in self-defense or open aggression against others. This is strictly based on what _is_ not on what anyone _wants_.

2. While communism in most forms does demand the subservience of the individual to the collective - also an idea based strictly in belief and little more - a form of communism could exist where the arrangement is strictly composed of individuals for whom the arrangement is mutually beneficial. When I offer you a beer or a sandwich, this is communistic inasmuch as I am uninterested in a tit-for-tat "pay me X amount for this" sort of deal. My act of sharing establishes a mutualistic precedent, which may serve me if I find myself in need of a sandwich or a beer when I lack one and you have one. True, you could choose to accept my sharing and never reciprocate, but it follows that the same logic I employed to share with you applies to you - we can go back and forth caring for one another as is mutualistic, without actually giving ourselves up entirely. Indeed, the moment an "egoist-communist" arrangement fails for one party, or demands true sacrifice, an individual is free to exit the arrangement. 

3. If my second point is not true, why write on a forum? Why write or speak at all? Indeed, speech is a free offer of a communistic nature. The moment you cease to get anything from this forum, unless you are an idiot, you will leave. But you are here because the sharing of information enriches you. There is no reason this logic cannot be applied to material endeavors like food, housing, and so on.

4. Last, just as "individual rights" are essentially worthless beliefs, the same is true of property rights. The "libertarian (capitalist)" mode of existence requires submission to the law of property. The true believer in property would not steal even if it meant starving to death. This is idiotic, since you get only one life, so far as we know. And so it is that capitalism would fall apart if all individuals in capitalist society were being completely egoistic and supporting their one concrete truth - themselves. It is egoistic for us to destroy capitalism unless we are literally 1%er ultra-wealthy owners of capital, which none of us here are. Appropriating the material elements of the capitalist system and administrating them in a decentralized, egoist-communist fashion is the most sensible approach for the individual.


----------



## black

blumerang said:


> Communism is ceding my rights to another. In principle, it seems perfect but like any ideology, it's not that simple. And no, I haven't seen a commune. Jst heard the propaganda of USA public school.
> 
> What are your thoughts on communism man?


thanks for your input.
well, its not as simple as just communism. there are a couple different perspectives within communism.

1. statist communism - communism where the state basically functions as a stand-in for what should be the communes that run production and labor, meaning, where there SHOULD be groups of workers controlling the means of production, there is a government pretending they are the workers and own the means of production. not really communism in my opinion, just authoritarian capitalism in red hats.

2. anti-statist communism - with this perspective, anarchism and communism are not mutually exclusive. to the contrary, most anti-statist communists would say that you cant quite have one without the other. I subscribe to that point of view. this communist point of view is based on horizontally organized communal living. committees, councils, etc of equal citizens function in a libertarian society with consensus based decision making in order to accomplish societies many initiatives and make important decisions. there is no power structure or hierarchy, only the groups of people deciding whats best for themselves.


----------



## blumerang

Thanks for the reply Hillbilly Castro. A few thoughts:

On your first point: I totally agree with everything you said. What you didn't mention as if a governing body can or cant allow you; that is "Rights" as I use the word. Drugs, marriage, and firearms are not the gov'ts authority to control in my opinion. 

Your 2nd point: These small communes you describe sound alot like bartering. Bartering is great. Fair trade. 

Your 3rd point is a great one. Tho I don't think I'm an idiot, I do see a point of weakness in my ideology. I know panhandlers and some make more money then I do working. This is the type of help I would hope Libertarian brothers would be obliged to, as they now have 15-20% more income due to no taxation. People help people man. Idk lol


----------



## blumerang

1. statist communism - communism where the state basically functions as a stand-in for what should be the communes that run production and labor, meaning, where there SHOULD be groups of workers controlling the means of production, there is a government pretending they are the workers and own the means of production. not really communism in my opinion, just authoritarian capitalism in red hats.

2. anti-statist communism - with this perspective, anarchism and communism are not mutually exclusive. to the contrary, most anti-statist communists would say that you cant quite have one without the other. I subscribe to that point of view. this communist point of view is based on horizontally organized communal living. committees, councils, etc of equal citizens function in a libertarian society with consensus based decision making in order to accomplish societies many initiatives and make important decisions. there is no power structure or hierarchy, only the groups of people deciding whats best for themselves.[/QUOTE]



#2 is interesting to me, so long as the state isn't involved. So where do you draw the line between a Township Govt and a Commune? (i read up the convo think we agree on quite a bit)


----------



## blumerang

black ^^^ (new to this site, figurin' shit out  )


----------



## black

blumerang said:


> 1. statist communism - communism where the state basically functions as a stand-in for what should be the communes that run production and labor, meaning, where there SHOULD be groups of workers controlling the means of production, there is a government pretending they are the workers and own the means of production. not really communism in my opinion, just authoritarian capitalism in red hats.
> 
> 2. anti-statist communism - with this perspective, anarchism and communism are not mutually exclusive. to the contrary, most anti-statist communists would say that you cant quite have one without the other. I subscribe to that point of view. this communist point of view is based on horizontally organized communal living. committees, councils, etc of equal citizens function in a libertarian society with consensus based decision making in order to accomplish societies many initiatives and make important decisions. there is no power structure or hierarchy, only the groups of people deciding whats best for themselves.





#2 is interesting to me, so long as the state isn't involved. So where do you draw the line between a Township Govt and a Commune? (i read up the convo think we agree on quite a bit)[/QUOTE]

that's okay man haha. within anarcho-communism as a organization of society there is no state at all. no centralized authority of any kind. all citizens have equal say in everything that pertains to their community, their labor, production, resources, healthcare, all of it. there would be no monetary system and no need for a state, only groups of people making sure that no one is getting screwed over. functionally, unions.


----------



## blumerang

Money is kinda useful...I mean, it was invented so that the potato farmer doesn't have to lug around his potatoes, ya know? I agree that "money" as it is today is fucked up. It should NEVER inflate or deflate (be fiat). Id be down for that system tho man lol, with or without money. There's a lot of kinks to work out...I'll look more into anarcho-communism.


----------



## dumpster harpy

But is it possible for Communism to exist without forced labor and violence?


----------



## blumerang

Malaclypse : As I see it, not on a large scale. It would have to be communities running as communes. Those do exist today, like the Amish...


----------



## Hillbilly Castro

blumerang said:


> Thanks for the reply Hillbilly Castro. A few thoughts:
> 
> On your first point: I totally agree with everything you said. What you didn't mention as if a governing body can or cant allow you; that is "Rights" as I use the word. Drugs, marriage, and firearms are not the gov'ts authority to control in my opinion.
> 
> Your 2nd point: These small communes you describe sound alot like bartering. Bartering is great. Fair trade.
> 
> Your 3rd point is a great one. Tho I don't think I'm an idiot, I do see a point of weakness in my ideology. I know panhandlers and some make more money then I do working. This is the type of help I would hope Libertarian brothers would be obliged to, as they now have 15-20% more income due to no taxation. People help people man. Idk lol



You're correct about rights being fundamentally and inextricably tied to the state. No conception of rights is remotely anarchistic for this reason - collectivist anarchism is essentially interested in decentralizing the function of the state into purely ideological control, where the mass of humans are innoculated with ideas that control them from within. It does not look altogether different from religion in this regard - "true believers" always speaking through the lens of their _idea_ - but rejecting the bodily knowledge of _the self_. Nevertheless, a collectivist council or a capitalist state, either must employ force in order to uphold or remove rights. This means that the tactically smart individual can outwit or outmode the state in pursuit of their own interests.



black said:


> 2. anti-statist communism - with this perspective, anarchism and communism are not mutually exclusive. to the contrary, most anti-statist communists would say that you cant quite have one without the other. I subscribe to that point of view. this communist point of view is based on horizontally organized communal living. committees, councils, etc of equal citizens function in a libertarian society with consensus based decision making in order to accomplish societies many initiatives and make important decisions. there is no power structure or hierarchy, only the groups of people deciding whats best for themselves.



This sounds wonderful, and I was under the influence of these ideas for many years. However, a bit of digging causes us to find that the basis of these ideas is unsound and fundamentally at odds with the very ends that it seeks.
Consider Larry Law's point in his piece on Critical Self Theory (found here at https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/larry-law-revolutionary-self-theory , point 2);

_"Whenever a system of ideas is structured with an abstraction at the centre — assigning a role or duties to you for its sake — this system is an ideology. An ideology is a system of false consciousness in which you no longer function as the subject in your relation to the world.

"The various forms of ideology are all structured around different abstractions, yet they all serve the interests of a dominant (or aspiring dominant) class by giving you a sense of purpose in your sacrifice, suffering and submission."_

Liberal thought produced the principles of equality, justice, reason, and democracy, among others, and all of these are present in classical anarcho-collectivist thought. All of them assume ideological forms, despite being rooted in empty metaphysical claims. For example, if you dig deeply, we find there is no empirical reason that humans "ought" to be understood as being "equal". In fact, while all of the enlightenment principles that underlie anarcho-collectivist thought are based on "ought" statements, one finds there is absolutely no basis that anything "ought to be" any particular way at all. Bear with me here - I understand these ideas constitute heresy in the church of Anarchism. I am only dismantling the structure of anarch_ism_ for the sake of making it better.

For any "ought" to exist, objects and conditions must be viewed as being meaningful. The nihilist position is the most cynical and the most based in observable reality; it finds that there is no reason anything needs to mean anything at all. Every meaning-making system on earth can be violated and no lightning bolt will strike the transgressor down. Anything considered immoral can be done, and so long as one evades the clubs and spears of those who believe that thing is "wrong", nothing will happen to the actor. Indeed, if you've ever kissed someone of the same sex, you'll find that the centuries of claims regarding the wrongness of this action are incorrect - nothing bad happened when you kissed that person simply for the fact that they were of the same and not the opposite sex, unless a queer-basher was around.

When anarchists talk in moral language, they are aiming to use the horde-mentality of the mob - with its clubs and its spears -for ends that seem better than the current society. They cast spells in evangelistic political language that speaks of "liberation" like a Christian speaks of heaven in order to move the currents of the unthinking masses somewhere "better". Would it not be even better if the individual that these idiotic masses are composed of sloughed off the mob mentality and began to think and act for themselves? If this is our aim, it appears we must abandon moral and ideological language, and idealism in general. This has not been conceivable until the beginning of the modern age.

Instead of dealing in abstractions and speaking in generalities about distant ideas like "society" and "justice", or making claims to some kind of spooky inherent "equality", it follows to aim for anarchistic ends from the opposite direction - rather than dealing in the most abstract concepts and hoping they trickle down to the level of the individual self, why not begin with the most concrete thing, so concrete it is not even a concept but a felt, lived, embodied experience: the self? When you start here, the "stop being idealistic" counterargument to anarchy dies, and the risk of living your life for the sake of getting to the "heaven" of a free society ends. You simply begin living life for your own instincts and desires, which likely will include aiming to help others do the same. This way, even if a free society never comes into being (it likely won't - or if it does, not in our lifetimes) you've lived as free as you can while aiming to extend that freedom by having real concrete victories in helping other individuals free themselves from the mob and from the yoke of ideology.

tl;dr, ideology, and systems of inherent meaning (as opposed to meaning created by ourselves personally) are antithetical to anarchy - and this critique simply pushes us to reverse the way we go about aiming to create anarchy.

edit: @Sirius you got any refutations? I know this shit gets you going dude!


----------



## dumpster harpy

How are rights inextricably tied to the state?

It seems to me that the purpose of the state is to violate the rights of the people.


----------



## black

malaclypse said:


> But is it possible for Communism to exist without forced labor and violence?


I don't think its possible for communism to exist without violence, but definitely without forced labor. labor would be mutually agreed upon, totally cooperative, and each would produce what they feel necessary naturally without needing to be forced


----------



## dumpster harpy

But what happens when you don't participate?

And who is the violence directed toward?


----------



## blumerang

Hillbilly Castro: Great think piece. I'm about to look at your link. Can I ask what your political ideology is?


----------



## black

Hillbilly Castro said:


> You're correct about rights being fundamentally and inextricably tied to the state. No conception of rights is remotely anarchistic for this reason - collectivist anarchism is essentially interested in decentralizing the function of the state into purely ideological control, where the mass of humans are innoculated with ideas that control them from within. It does not look altogether different from religion in this regard - "true believers" always speaking through the lens of their _idea_ - but rejecting the bodily knowledge of _the self_. Nevertheless, a collectivist council or a capitalist state, either must employ force in order to uphold or remove rights. This means that the tactically smart individual can outwit or outmode the state in pursuit of their own interests.
> 
> 
> 
> This sounds wonderful, and I was under the influence of these ideas for many years. However, a bit of digging causes us to find that the basis of these ideas is unsound and fundamentally at odds with the very ends that it seeks.
> Consider Larry Law's point in his piece on Critical Self Theory (found here at https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/larry-law-revolutionary-self-theory , point 2);
> 
> _"Whenever a system of ideas is structured with an abstraction at the centre — assigning a role or duties to you for its sake — this system is an ideology. An ideology is a system of false consciousness in which you no longer function as the subject in your relation to the world.
> 
> "The various forms of ideology are all structured around different abstractions, yet they all serve the interests of a dominant (or aspiring dominant) class by giving you a sense of purpose in your sacrifice, suffering and submission."_
> 
> Liberal thought produced the principles of equality, justice, reason, and democracy, among others, and all of these are present in classical anarcho-collectivist thought. All of them assume ideological forms, despite being rooted in empty metaphysical claims. For example, if you dig deeply, we find there is no empirical reason that humans "ought" to be understood as being "equal". In fact, while all of the enlightenment principles that underlie anarcho-collectivist thought are based on "ought" statements, one finds there is absolutely no basis that anything "ought to be" any particular way at all. Bear with me here - I understand these ideas constitute heresy in the church of Anarchism. I am only dismantling the structure of anarch_ism_ for the sake of making it better.
> 
> For any "ought" to exist, objects and conditions must be viewed as being meaningful. The nihilist position is the most cynical and the most based in observable reality; it finds that there is no reason anything needs to mean anything at all. Every meaning-making system on earth can be violated and no lightning bolt will strike the transgressor down. Anything considered immoral can be done, and so long as one evades the clubs and spears of those who believe that thing is "wrong", nothing will happen to the actor. Indeed, if you've ever kissed someone of the same sex, you'll find that the centuries of claims regarding the wrongness of this action are incorrect - nothing bad happened when you kissed that person simply for the fact that they were of the same and not the opposite sex, unless a queer-basher was around.
> 
> When anarchists talk in moral language, they are aiming to use the horde-mentality of the mob - with its clubs and its spears -for ends that seem better than the current society. They cast spells in evangelistic political language that speaks of "liberation" like a Christian speaks of heaven in order to move the currents of the unthinking masses somewhere "better". Would it not be even better if the individual that these idiotic masses are composed of sloughed off the mob mentality and began to think and act for themselves? If this is our aim, it appears we must abandon moral and ideological language, and idealism in general. This has not been conceivable until the beginning of the modern age.
> 
> Instead of dealing in abstractions and speaking in generalities about distant ideas like "society" and "justice", or making claims to some kind of spooky inherent "equality", it follows to aim for anarchistic ends from the opposite direction - rather than dealing in the most abstract concepts and hoping they trickle down to the level of the individual self, why not begin with the most concrete thing, so concrete it is not even a concept but a felt, lived, embodied experience: the self? When you start here, the "stop being idealistic" counterargument to anarchy dies, and the risk of living your life for the sake of getting to the "heaven" of a free society ends. You simply begin living life for your own instincts and desires, which likely will include aiming to help others do the same. This way, even if a free society never comes into being (it likely won't - or if it does, not in our lifetimes) you've lived as free as you can while aiming to extend that freedom by having real concrete victories in helping other individuals free themselves from the mob and from the yoke of ideology.
> 
> tl;dr, ideology, and systems of inherent meaning (as opposed to meaning created by ourselves personally) are antithetical to anarchy - and this critique simply pushes us to reverse the way we go about aiming to create anarchy.



I disagree with you in this. but that's okay. its okay for us to disagree. thank you for your input.


----------



## black

malaclypse said:


> But what happens when you don't participate?
> 
> And who is the violence directed toward?


I suppose if you don't participate you would just simply function as separate from the society, and if you became a problem for those that do you might be ostracized, simply asked to leave.

I would say a great deal of violence would have to be used to establish this kind of society. capitalists wont go down without a fight. and im sure if the USA became an anarchist confederacy it woiuld be targeted by imperialist societies. we would need to defend ourselves.


----------



## Hillbilly Castro

blumerang said:


> Hillbilly Castro: Great think piece. I'm about to look at your link. Can I ask what your political ideology is?



I am opposed to ideology and believe it can be overcome by eternal rebirth of the free ego. The work of Max Stirner, egoist anarchist, best embodies my way of thinking and being. Additionally, Renzo Novatore, Wolfi Landstreicher, and Bruno Filippi are relevant thinkers. Some links:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/renzo-novatore-toward-the-creative-nothing
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/lib...life-ridding-anarchy-of-the-leftist-millstone
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/lib...s-dark-laughter-the-writings-of-bruno-filippi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Be_Greedy
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own



malaclypse said:


> How are rights inextricably tied to the state?
> 
> It seems to me that the purpose of the state is to violate the rights of the people.



Some scholars make the distinction between "natural rights" and "legal rights" - but in my view, the idea of natural rights is simply the legal system projecting itself onto nature. In reality, no rights exist in nature except the right of force - which is only a right by matter of fact.
Wherever rights are employed as a concept, some body of force must be employed to uphold them - this is a state. Your right to free speech in the US exists because the federal government says they will uphold it by using force against anyone who threatens it. But this makes you reliant on the state for its enforcement, and when they fail to enforce it, or actively suppress it, you're fucked.

Collectivist anarchists still aim to keep rights, and because rights are inherently statelike in how they demand orchestrated violence to be upheld, the collectivists essentially seek to retain the state's functions - they'd just like to see them employed in a nicer, less ugly way. In reality, any group that retains the concept of rights must resort to orchestrated force, and therefore power. It takes you right back to where you started.



black said:


> I disagree with you in this. but that's okay. its okay for us to disagree. thank you for your input.



Are you able to refute anything I've argued, or are you merely disagreeing in an aesthetic sense? I'd reckon, if your views can't stand up through reason over and against my contentions, they aren't worth much. Perhaps you could sway me in your direction as well.


----------



## dumpster harpy

I disagree with you about rights. I think there are natural individual rights. By having a voice, one has the right to use it. By having a life, one has the right to defend it.

I don't need a state to uphold or guarantee my rights.


----------



## black

Hillbilly Castro said:


> Are you able to refute anything I've argued, or are you merely disagreeing in an aesthetic sense? I'd reckon, if your views can stand up through reason over and against my contentions, they aren't worth much. Perhaps you could sway me in your direction as well.



honestly I got about 2 hours of sleep last night and I don't really feel well. and it would be quite a long post to explain why my beliefs are just fundamentally opposite to yours. so, forgive me please, I do apologize but I don't quite feel like explaining myself.


----------



## Hillbilly Castro

malaclypse said:


> I disagree with you about rights. I think there are natural individual rights. By having a voice, one has the right to use it. By having a life, one has the right to defend it.
> 
> I don't need a state to uphold or guarantee my rights.



Perhaps I am misunderstanding. Can you define "rights" and explain exactly why they exist?

To me, the only right is force, which is not really a right, it just is what it is. A right implies an entitlement that must be granted before the use of force comes into play - and to me this does not exist meaningfully except by the overwhelming threat of violence (the state). You could say you have a right to use your voice, since you have it, but if you are unarmed and someone says "shut up or I'll shoot", that right means nothing and the only question is one of whether you can outgun your adversary.


----------



## Drengor

malaclypse said:


> I disagree with you about rights. I think there are natural individual rights. By having a voice, one has the right to use it. By having a life, one has the right to defend it.
> 
> I don't need a state to uphold or guarantee my rights.



Maybe what you mean is you have the 'ability' to use your voice, which you do. I love to use my voice, and I love it when others use theirs, sometimes even when I don't like the words they're using if only as a reminder that I'm not the same as them! I expect everyone to want to use their voice when they feel like it, but I'd hope that they'd understand situations in which using their voice will cause them harm. Since one of the only ways to get people to not harm others when they want to speak is to _threaten_ them with the same or worse harm, the State sells us that service for the measly cost of our obedience*.

* There's a lot of fine print to 'obedience'

The dream is a world where nobody needs or wants to hurt people for what they say. A great way to achieve that would be a mutual understanding of your neighbours needs and desires, but the only way you can do your part is to offer what you have, ask for what you want, take what you need, and not harm people who aren't stopping you from doing the first three.


----------



## dumpster harpy

That's kind of what I'm saying. As I understand it, a right is something of which it would be wrong to deprive people, as opposed to a privilege, which is granted by a supposed authority.

Which for me, means the right to exist peacefully in the way one chooses, and to defend that existence.


----------



## Hillbilly Castro

The question is - what makes a thing "wrong"?


----------



## dumpster harpy

Coercion.

Any nonconsensual act toward another human being (outside of self-defense) is wrong.


----------



## Hillbilly Castro

And why is that?


----------



## black

coercion constitutes wrongness because it has the potential to stunt the evolution of the human animal. humans exist to evolve like any other creature, and have evolved to a point where competition is obsolete (it occurs, but due to the nature of homo sapiens it no longer promotes evolution), and cooperation is the linchpin(sp?) of that evolution. every real advancement to date has been a result of our ability to cooperate. coercion and force directly hinder cooperation.


----------



## black

read some Kropotkin


----------



## black

funny eh? since you like suggesting reading so much I figured I'd give it a go. but that's just you stroking your ego isn't it?


----------



## Hillbilly Castro

I think you fail to understand my position - I've read Kropotkin, nearly all of his work. I once gave myself entirely to the collectivist anarchist position, and spoke like a religious missionary about politics. I now reject his position.
Use the Socratic method on all of this stuff and you find you cannot find a bottom to these arguments that is not rooted in mere dogmatism and pure belief. Again, why is "evolution" _inherently_ meaningful? You have chosen it to be meaningful, and the fact that you can choose this to mean something means you can as surely choose anything else to mean anything on the question of morality. There is no empirical, concrete basis for moral "truth". 
If you punch me in the throat, it hurts. Maybe I can make that hurt mean what I want it to mean - hatred, kinky sex, saving me from choking, etc - but I cannot change the fact that such a punch hurts. 
If humans fail to "evolve", I am not affected in a bodily sense. If it affects me at all, it is because I have chosen to either prioritize or actively rail against human evolution, and whatever suffering or joy it causes me is of my own creation entirely. 

Yet somehow, moralists speak as though "the immoral" would strike the moralist as surely as a punch to the throat would. They are not conscious of the fictive nature of their beliefs - they treat them as natural laws, and these laws eventually control them and deny the bodily experience of self by demanding sacrifice. Whatever use exists in evolution being "our reason for existence" is far, far more abstract than that which is felt in the body of the self. If I am going to speak with certainty, it is going to be about things that are absolute - not abstract. 

Also fuck off with the "stroking my ego" quip, man, I'm not trying to be an asshole. We disagree, and I think it's funny you're telling me to read Kropotkin, because I used to be so into him. Like I said, I've totally been on the part of the political journey that you're on. Maybe you've found a home there, but I think the foundation of that home will not be strong if it cannot withstand the arguments of Stirner.


----------



## black

that bit about stroking your ego was reactionary. I thought by implying that what I said was funny you were attempting to be demeaning. it just kinda came off that way. if it wasn't your intention, then my bad.

I don't quite have the energy to argue for collectivist thought. whether the arguments would stand up in your point of view is questionable anyway. I myself do not even consciously call myself a collectivist. I simply have beliefs in certain ways of accomplishing growth in the human world.


----------



## black

I just don't buy into arguments that are just boiled down into existential questions. sure, theres some scientific validity to questioning "morals" and whether or not the tiny little brain that I have and its many firing synapses maintains some kind of inherent authority on how the world should work, when really I am an ant, tickling the ass of the Earth that Woden so gracefully wanders. but I am grounded in the human world. my society, my people, my gods. and I don't really feel the need to question the existential nature of my moral truth


----------



## black

and don't get me wrong! question! question away! inhabit the cosmos and pull apart those who fail to justify their motives. I don't want to imply that I am immune to these questions. I simply don't think its relevant and I, as a simple man, a grunt, a peon, a worker, cannon fodder for leftism, cannot let those questions smudge my "zeal".


----------



## Hillbilly Castro

black said:


> I simply don't think its relevant and I, as a simple man, a grunt, a peon, a worker, cannon fodder for leftism, cannot let those questions smudge my "zeal".



Not even trying to be a dick - I respect how consistent you are. I do not think it is anarchistic to render oneself "cannon fodder" for a cause that is only your own by abstraction - too much to Mao's liking for me, I must say - but certainly no one can say you are inconsistent.


----------



## black

Hillbilly Castro said:


> Not even trying to be a dick - I respect how consistent you are. I do not think it is anarchistic to render oneself "cannon fodder" for a cause that is only your own by abstraction - too much to Mao's liking for me, I must say - but certainly no one can say you are inconsistent.


did you just call me a maoist? excuse me while I jump off a bridge. maybe I need to rethink my life lol


----------



## black

yeah the "cannon fodder" thing was more tongue and cheek in my head than it reads.


----------



## blumerang

blumerang said:


> Communism is ceding my rights to another. In principle, it seems perfect but like any ideology, it's not that simple. And no, I haven't seen a commune. Jst heard the propaganda of USA public school.
> 
> What are your thoughts on communism man?




It's good to disagree. Thanks for the response guys.


----------



## A New Name

@Hillbilly Castro & @black Of course the only thing you can be certain is the 'I am' and everything else is open to scrutiny but the purpose of all of "this", it seems to me, is to give ourselves and our descendants the best, healthiest and most beautiful life possible and you don't need, and indeed can't have, certainties to go on about it. I agree that one should dismantle all possible "certainties" that actually aren't such but one should not let the absence of such be something that impedes us on this quest. Why? Because it seems like the best thing to do for said beautiful life. And why is said beautiful life desirable? Well, because I said so of course.


----------



## Odin

I voted yes, now we can have some anarchy... ::drinkingbuddy::


That is... I wonder if any society can truly be free... perhaps only individuals and group families.... sooner or later some kinda of natural order imposes itself... even most nature seems random until you take the time to study observe and classify it. 

maybe its just us human beans.


----------



## black

Odin said:


> I voted yes, now we can have some anarchy... ::drinkingbuddy::
> 
> 
> That is... I wonder if any society can truly be free... perhaps only individuals and group families.... sooner or later some kinda of natural order imposes itself... even most nature seems random until you take the time to study observe and classify it.
> 
> maybe its just us human beans.


depends on what you by free. anarchism does not inherently imply disorder unless said anarchist is one of those "Up the Punx" idiot teenagers (god bless em). in fact if you were to ask Peter Kropotkin or Rudolph Rocker, anarchism is all about organization. just non-hierarchal, anti-state organization. can we ever be free? in what sense? my definition, an anarcho-communist society, free association of citizen committees, labor unions, and yada yada yada you've heard it before, I do not think that we, as in the United States of America, can ever be free in that sense. maybe we, as in, my family or a commune we hypothetically associate with, sure. but this country? no. this planet? probably not. I wish I could say differently but no.


----------



## maracasan

Sorry for jumping in late, but I truly dig this an-com stuff you started. 

Only one thing.. I agree that communism is a form of government that could stymie the spread of a globalizing economy and thereby strengthen a country from within by creating an influx of localized, relevant jobs. I'm with it. But what about the time humans would need to make such a transition?

I know this is a step beyond the theoretical.. but given our crises of the day, either the planet or civilization may not have the patience for us to finish a new project. And this isn't a thread about which power ranger we understand the most. 

Before this looks too much like an overstated "end of days" speech, I believe the sciences will save our species. If we were to switch to communism and decentralize our scientific organizations, would that affect scientific progress adversely enough to doom the planet? The earth is pretty pissed with us after all. And if you guys can see where I'm going with this, we as citizens (in America, at least) don't really have control of our political process. 

All this to say that capitalism has fucked us by allowing a capacity for greed to exist in a free market, which became our ethics of governance, and here we are still answering to Dudley dipshit and his pussy grabbing fingers way too close to the button. 

Not to sound trite, but a revolutionary form of government would make the most sense to me. Necessity is the mother of invention, right? Excise old world corporate monopolies and political corruption, keep the good pieces, then have the the formerly oppressed populace worry about the rules along the way. To stand up, coordinate non-compliance marches, stage strikes, boycott, and generally exercise our "right" (I like to think those come natural) to protest the unjust in unison might do the trick. Just please save the science.. I've never been on a spaceship. 

Welp- butt in, butt out. I hope at least one of you proletarians have some gears turning. Thank you stp for this convo, and good morning.


----------



## black

maracasan said:


> Sorry for jumping in late, but I truly dig this an-com stuff you started.
> 
> Only one thing.. I agree that communism is a form of government that could stymie the spread of a globalizing economy and thereby strengthen a country from within by creating an influx of localized, relevant jobs. I'm with it. But what about the time humans would need to make such a transition?
> 
> I know this is a step beyond the theoretical.. but given our crises of the day, either the planet or civilization may not have the patience for us to finish a new project. And this isn't a thread about which power ranger we understand the most.
> 
> Before this looks too much like an overstated "end of days" speech, I believe the sciences will save our species. If we were to switch to communism and decentralize our scientific organizations, would that affect scientific progress adversely enough to doom the planet? The earth is pretty pissed with us after all. And if you guys can see where I'm going with this, we as citizens (in America, at least) don't really have control of our political process.
> 
> All this to say that capitalism has fucked us by allowing a capacity for greed to exist in a free market, which became our ethics of governance, and here we are still answering to Dudley dipshit and his pussy grabbing fingers way too close to the button.
> 
> Not to sound trite, but a revolutionary form of government would make the most sense to me. Necessity is the mother of invention, right? Excise old world corporate monopolies and political corruption, keep the good pieces, then have the the formerly oppressed populace worry about the rules along the way. To stand up, coordinate non-compliance marches, stage strikes, boycott, and generally exercise our "right" (I like to think those come natural) to protest the unjust in unison might do the trick. Just please save the science.. I've never been on a spaceship.
> 
> Welp- butt in, butt out. I hope at least one of you proletarians have some gears turning. Thank you stp for this convo, and good morning.


well presumably the sciences, in an an-com society, would work just like every other organizations. the resources they need would be free to them based on their need and they could do studies, experiments, and the like for the betterment of all of us in return. in fact, I would argue that it would make scientic studies and other process speed up greatly considering funding is no longer an issue. Joe Scientist, who has brilliant, innovative ideas but is part of a community college lab with nothing to their name, would be able to do the most "expensive" and expansive of experiments because they would receive everything they need, probably (given there is a committee of scientific citizens to argue for it and decide on it) based on the experiments importance. ofcourse I just came up with that and it could function differently in terms of what committee and how but I think that model would work just fine. maybe they could receive resources based on other standards not importance of their experiments but obviously we have no way of testing this and how it fits into an anarcho-communistic societies aims, needs, and wants.


----------



## DrewSTNY

I agree with @black in the anarcho-communism sense of free association of small communities, but on the state level, this has proven disastrous as it is consensus of the few being forced upon the general population. This is to have conformity of the message from all citizens in a top down fashion. Reality is that many of the communist workers' revolutions started at the ground level and once gaining the power of the state, the revolution set out to enforce its view on the unwilling. There are too many examples to list, but suffice to say that anyone espousing state level collectivism needs to have their head checked. 

I am old enough to know that the Iranian revolution took a vibrant, growing country and turned it into a shit hole (and yes, I am fully aware that the US CIA precipitated this revolution for some demented reason to get back at the Shah).

I have witnessed what happens in China when someone speaks out against the state.

I have witnessed people going to prison for perceived slights against the royal family of Thailand.

Now Canada is setting the stage for crime-think, which has already resulted in at least one arrest and deportation for "hate speech" stored on a personal tablet.

In my opinion, the state is against freedom and only interested in conformity. This extends to political ideals where the divide between partisan opinion is growing wider and wider with no path to reconciliation. 

I guess it should come down to personal responsibility. If you won't take care of your own self and want someone else to do it, then you are doomed to be a ward of the state no matter what political monstrosity happens to be in control.

Do corporations take advantage of everyone and everything? Hell, yes. What do you do about it? Do what you can to take from them, or don't even bother to participate in their games.

Who is a good lawyer? Any dead one, they can't play the FU game anymore.

Why do celebrities make so much money? Because society pays them too much to be entertaining.

Do I want revolution? Yes, but only to dismantle the corporate state so that it cannot affect me or mine. I think this can be accomplished simply by refusing to participate with the state or any of its actors. I think @Tatanka has a pretty good thing going with the semi-nomadic existence. He is mostly extricated from having to deal with the state at most levels and only pays a minimal homage in the form of property taxes. The reward for being self-deterministic in our ways has a value that far exceeds anything this planet or any state can provide.


----------

