Capitalism and Anarchism

Does anybody else find it wierd that Anarchy is presented as an alternative to Capitalism?

Doesn't anyone think that Anarchy and true Capitalism are one in the same? A buddy of mine used to talk about Anarchist theory, I always thought it was fairly interesting, but it seems to me that Anarchy and True Capitalism are both based on a completely free market.

 

I have always thought that if the world fell into anarchy the corporations would rule the world. I don't know, for some reason a lot of marxists have insisted on calling themselves anarchists, but of course, except in the case of an impossible utopian society where everyone puts the community ahead of themselves, redistribution of wealth is impossible without government. Really big, mean government.

Of course, this foolish contradiction is quite common, but I'm not sure why. Perhaps, to a true socialist, since socialism is a totaltarian system where government regulates as much of your life as possible, anarchy is what is feared the most. So they take this term and use it to recruit a bunch of ignorant kids.

I dunno, it's weird. But you can always tell an ignorant pinko propaganda victim from a smart (yet misguided, possibly deluded I.M.H.O) marxist when they misuse the word anarchy.

 

I think hardcore socialists equate socialism with anarchism because they buy into the sugar-coated, idealistic, hippy-dippy vision of socialism they have been sold, failing to understand it's the same system governments have used for ages to enslave and control the masses. These people fail to see that men in power are generally corrupt, and no matter what kind of system you are living under, there will always be a select few in power over everyone else to varying extents. Much more so with a socialist government, which is where we're headed right now under the Bush neocon regime.

I think the socialists in this country will have their wish in a few years, because what we see happening is the gradual destruction of the Middle Class in America. Three million manufacturing jobs have been lost under Bush as everything is shipped overseas. Meanwhile, the country is plauged by record debt and deficit as the dollar continues to drop lower and lower with each passing day. This can only go on for so long, and there is no chance of it getting better in the foreseeable future. Pretty soon you're either going to be a slave or a slavemaster.

Bush and his cronies have no allegiance to the American people, which is something that needs to be understood. The only allegience the people high within our government have is with the big, multinational corporations and the world bankers, who want to topple America in order to bring about their global government. This is why Bush and Co., I believe, are intentionally destroying this country's economy. And since nobody will ever want to believe that, chances are they will succeed.

 

True anarchism doesn't even recognize any "market" at all. Production for use, rather than a production for profit, is one of the main credos. Everything is produced for mutual consumption. All resources are shared, rather than bought and sold, thereby eliminating the notion of a hierarchical structure based on what one owns. Hierarchy and the need for physical survival would never clash, or even meet, as is now our everyday existance (which is why an underclass is needed to sustain a capitalist culture of plutocratic rule). In an anarchist society, "hierarchy" would be relegated only to true skill accomplishments as well as sports, like "mentor/apprenctice"..."coach/player", etc.

And as a sidenote, anarchism would be a work in progress. The form of society has never been allowed to flourish (save a tiny population of various subcultures throughout history before being destroyed by outside enemies) so there's no way to predict an "ultimate outcome". It would be an experiment...one that much of the human race is prepared to accept, despite the disinformation spewed from the mainstream media culture, which provides us with half-truths...at best.

 

I would venture to say that we have already reached that place Matt. For the majority of the 6 billion people in this world, we are already either slaves or slave masters. Certainly there is room for things to get worse, but the deliniation is clearly there as we speak.

 

Anarchists don't have credos, silly. They don't give a fuck. "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." Anarchy is social darwinism at it's purest. How the fuck are resources going to be shared without a government to measure, distribute, regulate, enforce, transport, take, give, and all of the other shit that has to be done to share goods without a market?

Seriously, how the fuck do you enforce socialism without a government.

What do you think, people are just going to be nice? What happens the first time there is a shortage of something everybody wants or needs? If there is no government to force people to follow the rules your little utopian fantasyland will turn into Mad Max overnight.

Capitalism, on the other hand, while it is better with a little regulation to ensure fair practice, can function just fine without government. In fact, capitalism is the natural system for large societies, and in anarchy, a capitalist barter economy would probably be the dominant economic system.

Gods damn. Do you even know how to think or do you just spew shit from infoshop all day like a robot? I don't care how many ten dollar words they use to say it, or if their front page proclaims that they are "one of the oldest and most respected political websites", they are definitely not anarchists.

From now on, I will refer to pinko "anarchists" as neo-anarchists. I think it fits.

 

Sounds like full-fledged Communism to me.

 

Anarchism with Capitalism is not Anarchism, as you are still slaves to the banks. The banks are the real masters while the states just puppets. See money is created when banks allow people to borrow money, that they create out of thin air (we have not been on the gold standard for some time), the people borrowing has to pay back the banks with intrest. This gives bank huge power, as all new money enters the economy as debt.

In fact modern money is just paper and faith, the US dollar only has value because people belive it has value. Modern capitalism is nothing but smoke and mirrors, yet the the weak minded fall for.

The solution is either

a)A profitless monitary system so you don't need banks and you don't have wealth gravitating to the wealthy.

or

b) a monitaryless system, society would have to issue all work orders through a democratic process.

Both means that the society has the power to dicate the economy, thus more Anarchist since the society has no master. If the people vote they want to build a lot of park land, they either just find people to do it or issues money to pay for it.

Now people need to work with each other, unless you want everyone to do everything on their own. If the society is run by democratic assembles, then you can have a modern society and not have the fear the goverment since the goverment is the people.

 

No, it's communism without government! We haven't quite worked out all of the kinks, but, ummm, yeah, with no government everyone will be nice and share and live a perfect utopian life with no one gaining any more status or stuff or power than anyone else. And the great thing about it is that everyone will participate willingly and be good little neo-anarchists, and we will all follow the neo-anarchist credos and everyone will live happily ever after because there will be no government!

Yep, you sure can fool some of the people all of the time.

 

What I have yet to see is one person truly factor in and have a reasonable explanation as to how the basic and universal human trait of greed can fit in with a socialistic society. Spout all you want about this all for one, one for all shit, and there's still going to be plenty of people that want more and feel that they deserve more than what is rationed to the neighborhood. Those are the people that will prevent this utopian puppy dogs and ice cream world from happening.

In a sense - this perfect socialistic society that people speak of is impossible, it goes against human nature. I'm not saying we shouldn't strive for a more 'equal' world, but no matter how you slice the bread, someone is going to get stuck with the heal and not be happy about it.

 

You are correct that banks create money out of thin air (not that that's a bad thing...because banks also create wealth out of thin air).

However, I fail to see how you're a "slave to the bank" under anarchism. There is no commonly accepted monetary standard, so things are only worth what the laws of supply and demand say they're worth. If you don't want to use whatever money your bank gives you, don't use it. Barter with someone else, or make your own monetary standard.

The US dollar is backed up by the US government, so as long as the US government continues to exist, the US dollar will continue to have value. In some respects it's a matter of "faith" that the government won't go bankrupt, but ALL investments require some risk. Green pieces of paper are no different.

And how would this system come about, if there's no government to impose it, and the banks are somehow prevented from imposing it?

This is just stupid. Money is a CONVENIENCE, because it's easier to pay someone cash than to barter for everything. You change absolutely NOTHING by getting rid of green pieces of paper, other than making things more inefficient and inconvenient for everyone.

SOCIETY would have to issue work orders? Through a DEMOCRATIC PROCESS? Under ANARCHY? Why not just replace the word "society" with what you're actually talking about: a totalitarian government.

Again, replace "the people" with "the government," which is what you're actually talking about. How exactly, under anarchy, do you propose to assemble all the people for a vote? How exactly, under anarchy, do you determine who is qualified to vote and who is not? How exactly, under anarchy, do you determine what goes on the ballot and what doesn't?

This is utterly ridiculous. Unless you're planning on having "the people" vote on every single petty thing that could possible concern the community (and even then, to some degree), there's going to be a government calling the shots.

Just who do you think you're fooling by using words like "society" and "the people," when you're actually talking about a communist police state?

 

Greed is a side effect of capitalism, capitalism rewards greed thus we are conditioned to be greedy.

If it is a profit based system, wealth will gravitate to wealty, eventually creating a new master.

Wrong, the US goverment can defalt on its debts, crashing the US dollar with the US goverment still existing. Also if investors lose faith in the US dollar it will also crash.

Unless you want people to not interact with each other, you are going to have to have some system where decisions get made. For example a school teacher getting paid for their time by a democratic council, from money they created out of thin air, thus (s)he can trade it for goods and services as the people know somewhere along the line, society issued the money to get things society wanted. Since it is profitless, the teacher can't get more from society then society thinks (s)he is worth.

It is a option.

You use autonomous democratic assemblies that network with each other. You divide society into these small assemblies, no ballots are needed as each of the assemblies are small enough, that the people can vote in the assembly directly. This also means the assemblies are also small enough for direct debate. As the assemblies are networked, ideas and voting can be passed on, to give say on larger issues.

 

Now this statement is completely assinine.

I can promise you that greed existed long before capitalism.

 

But not at the same level, try reading Pavlov.

 

Anarchism and communism is the same social system. This is not an opinion, it's a fact.

Anarchism is just as opposed to capitalism, as communism is.

 

You cannot have communism without laws, extensive government, police force, etc. Anarchism is opposed to all of these as well as capitalism. Just because anarchism and communism may be opposed to capitalism does not mean they are the same. Wahabbism is opposed to capitalism as well. Does that mean it is the same as anarchism or communism? Anarchism is actually closer to capitalism than communism (ever heard of anarcho-capitalism?) and libertatianism is closer to anarchism than communism is. Just because you say it's fact does not mean it is. Try studying all available sources on the subject besides anarchist or communist propaganda and you may learn something. You may also learn that fascism and communism are very closely related. But you couldn't support FASCISM could you? That's what capitalism is, no doubt, in your (misinformed) eyes. Philosophy means nothing; it all depends on how it's implemented, and what happens when it takes hold.

 

Laws and a police could be seen as something needed in every society.

The state is not needed when there is no need to oppress anyone.

There's nothing wrong with laws in an anarchist society.

True, that does not mean they are the same, but anarchists and communists support the same system. It just has a different name.

Different name = same system

Anarchism is on the revolutionary left.

There's no such thing as anarcho-capitalism, because in a capitalist society, you have the boss and the subordinate. The exploiter and the exploited. The oppressor and the oppressed.

Where's your proof of this?

If anarchist and communist societies are societies without a state or a money-system, where classes are abolished, and where the people work according to ability, and receive according to need... And libertarianism is extreme-capitalism... Which one is closest? The fact is that anarchism and communism are the same.

I am actually very well read, especially when it comes to ideology.

So basically, according to your logic, I shouldn't learn about anarchism or communism... By reading the works of anarchists or communists... OK...

You got it all wrong.

Fascism is the mixing state economy with the market, totalitarianism, a very centralized society, dictatorship, a "third way" etc.


In a communist society, you won't have either the state, nor the market. Totalitarianism? Think again. Centralized society? De-centralized society. Dictatorship? Direct democracy. "A Third Way"? No.

No, I do not belong on the right side of the spectrum, thank you.

USSR, China, Cuba were all officially socialist. They never claimed to be communist societies. Reason?

Have you ever heard of "the dictatorship of the proletariat"?

 

First of all if you think Anarchy and Communism are the same your a fool. Communism needs enforcement, also the far right is the same the faschists need a police force or else no one would listen to them. The closest thing resembling Anarchy is Tribalism or Feudalism. WHere the leader gains trust through killing and being the bbest warrior, and having the best food supply. Then people pledge themselves to the lord for food and shelter in return. I.E Feudalism, you form a clan and fight untill you dominate or get dominated, either through killing or famine. It is the wild, you live like a pack of wolves. Helping only your extended "family" or clan by conquering land and following the Alpha wolfs orders. Which are the only basis for laws. I forget who said it but it is just Darwinism and survival of the fittest, Anarchy is nature, its living like animals. Then once one tribe becomes super powerfull it institutes a monarcy or Feudal Kingdom untill it is powerfull enough to be a faschist dictatorship.

 

Man, I knew there was something about you I didn't like besides your disrespectful user-name.
Just for the record...you are WRONG. Quite to the contrary...we DO give a fuck. More than most, in fact. More than the sad little drones who sit around all day playing video games, that's for damn sure. You have no idea of what Anarchism is really about. I've been researching the history of, and have acquainted myself with many people who refer to themselves as "anarchists" or anti-capitalists, or anti-authoritarians...whatever label they pick. I've attended several anarchist demonstrations in the post-Seattle period. We all share a common credo which IS discussed at length on Infoshop...a site that contains the most elaborate descriptions of what anarchism is about on the web. Learn something before spouting your hopeless nonsense.

 

ok...

I'm sure many anarchists would disagree.