what political ideology makes most sense to you?

[Hillbilly Castro]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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 anarchism 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]

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]

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 anarchism 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]

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]

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

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.

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]

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]

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.