-1 vote

Anarchy = Communism

Karl Marx argued that totalitarian central government (Socialism) would enable the masses to share all resources equally, and then the need for a state would eventually just disappear, and this would be utopia (Communism).

This idea of a stateless utopia is exactly the same nonsense that those who preach Anarchy have been spreading here more and more lately.

If we try to completely wipe away all government, then we will simply be clearing the way for complete fascism.

Please grow up and understand that we do need some laws in order to co-exist peacefully within a nation, state, city-state, whatever.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

LOL.

We have fascism now! Have you taken a good hard look at DC lately? Bailouts, billions missing, gubberment controling business, owning companies, banks, ect...can you say FASCISM. It's already HERE.

Heck they been putting the little wheat symbols on our money and everything for YEARS. They even have it on the walls of our courts.

We live in anarchy now, come on look at the corrupt politicians, the fat cats, rouge police, ect. You think the rules apply to them? Nah, they get to control and extort from us, because honest people play by they're rules.. 80% of americans, don't want trouble, they want to live in peace. So we allow these jackbooted thugs to extort from us, until someday they will own everything. Including every move you will make in the future.

See, taxation is a force, if they can take a little, they won't stop till they get it all.

Kinda crazy don't you think? that 80% of the populace allows 20% to control them.

Yeah, you wouldn't want 80% of peace loving people to live in anarchy...Lol.

Get real.

So which is it?


Socialism, Communism and Fascism are all quite different, though Socialism and Communism are fairly close. Sweden has had a Socialist government for a long time and - despite the very high taxes - it seems to work fine.

Israel is home to many Kibbutz (I don't know what the plural is) and they are probably close to Communal living, though Communism is too strong a word. Everybody works, everybody shares, everybody gets along - mostly. I don't know if they still exist, but I knew many people who enjoyed their time on a Kibbutz. Back in Biblical times, the Essenes wee a Communal community. They worked, shared, raised the kids, and were bound by a common faith and way of life.

Fascism implies a dictator, or a ruling elite that just use the people as their property. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin (despite claiming to be Communist; he was a ruthless dictator), Pol Pot, and many others. They were not nice people.

I think, however, in the past, there have been good Kings and Queens. King John of England was kind to the people and fair in his dealings. Most of the others were wretched and made life miserable for the commoners.

You are right about the need for law.

The idea of limited government is nonsense

It is impossible to have a limited government.
Since the government always has the final say on what a constitution really means, it always finds there are few few limitations indeed.
Please grow up and quit promoting an idea that has never worked.

I agree!

Impossible. Never going to happen. There is no way to have limited government. It's like cancer, it grows until it kills freedom.

Not So I disagree. Anarchy

Not So I disagree. Anarchy is not a centralized large scale operation that you need for Fascism. It is local just as a Libertarianism.

um

Fortune Favors the Bold

the problem with marx was not his ends but his means. But i agree, if what youa re saying is that nearly any means that involve the use of violence to acheive the goal of non-violence is doomed at its inception.

Fortune Favors the Bold

The problems were with his

The problems were with his ends as well. "From each according to ability to each according to need", logically implies being able to control what people's needs are, and to ensure that no one needs more than someone else has the ability to provide.

So totalitarianism is baked into Marx's very premise. Also, he simply had no idea that without a market in which prices are accurately determined, no society can exist, as production coordination becomes completely impossible. No economy of any complexity can survive without a price discovery mechanism. In total, the guy was just wrong, period.

His insights regarding the relative importance of basis over superstructure is timeless, though. And should be internalized by every nitwit raised on a steady diet of pop culture lore indicating the opposite.

order out of chaos

thats what the elites want.

Anarchy is but a temporary situation followed by desperate and stupid decisions made in haste, leading to totalitarianism.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
woo hoo!

I can

Cain & Able
you-no

ummmmm -- no

Murder is "pro-choice" (chaos) while An=No and Archos=Authority means Individualism and thus Liberty "pro-life"

Octobox

30 min video that explains all this. A must see

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6732659166933078950&...

Mathew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Answering a couple minarchist objections

A couple responses by Stefan Molyneux,

OKAY – WHAT IF TWO DISPUTE RESOLUTION ORGANIZATIONS (DROS) HAVE DIFFERENT RULES – ISN’T THATJUST GOING TO RESULT IN ENDLESS CIVIL WAR?
First of all, it is unlikely that Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs) would have wildly different rules, because that would be economically inefficient. Cell phone companies use similar protocols, so that they can interoperate with each other. Railroad companies tend to use the same gauge, so that trains can travel as widely as possible. Internet service providers exchange data with other service providers, passing e-mails
and other data back and forth. Like evolution, the free market is more about cooperation than pure competition. If a DRO wants to create a new rule, that rule will be fairly useless unless other DROs are willing to cooperate with it – just as a new e-mail program is fairly useless unless it uses existing protocols. This need for interoperability with other DROs will inevitably keep the number of new rules to the most economically efficient minimum. Customers will prefer DROs with broader reciprocity agreements, just as they prefer credit cards that are valid in a large number of locations. New rules will also add to the costs for DRO subscribers – and if it costs them more money than it
saves, the DRO will lose business.
BUT – WON’T THE MOST SUCCESSFUL DRO JUST ARM ITSELF, VIOLENTLY ELIMINATE ALL THE OTHER DROS, AND EMERGE AS A NEW GOVERNMENT?
First of all, if the potential emergence of a new government at some point in the future is of great concern, then surely the elimination of existing governments in the present is a worthy goal. If we have cancer, we go through chemotherapy to eliminate it in the present, even though we may get cancer again at some point in the future. Secondly, unlike governments, DROs are not violent institutions. DROs will be primarily populated by white-collar workers: accountants, mediators, executives and so on. DROs are about as likely to become paramilitary organizations as your average accounting firm is likely to become an elite
squad of ninja death warriors. Given the current existence of governments that possess nuclear weapons, I for one am willing to take that risk.
Thirdly, if a DRO tries to turn itself into a government, the other DROs will certainly act to prevent it. DROs would simply refuse to cooperate with any DRO that refused to submit to “arms inspections.” Furthermore, DRO customers would also not take very kindly to their DRO becoming
an armed institution – and their rates would certainly skyrocket, because their DRO would have to provide its regular services, as well as pay for all those black helicopters and RPGs. Any DRO that was paying for goods or services that its customers did not want – i.e. an army – would very quickly go out of business, because it would not be competitive in terms of rates.

For more arguments demonstrating the viability of anarchism vist freedomainradio,com.

marlow

marlow

Sigh

You guys never make very convincing arguments with the whole 'anarchy' thing.

In the beginning we had anarchy. What happened to it? Where did it go?

Given the fact that we know that: A. We as a species gave up on Anarchy for some reason in the distant past, and B. It took many thousands of years before we were able to get Governments as decent as the ones we have now. Why should we cast aside what we have now and go for broke on the wheel of random human stupidity? Would it not be better to incrementally modify our current government in order to make it more anarchyesque.

At any rate, jumping into 'how', and 'why' its practical without addressing how and when we lost it is foolish in my opinion.

A sample of the problems with your post:

If a DRO wants to create a new rule, that rule will be fairly useless unless other DROs are willing to cooperate with it

Unless the innovative DRO uses force to coerce other DROs to cooperate.

Any DRO that was paying for goods or services that its customers did not want – i.e. an army – would very quickly go out of business, because it would not be competitive in terms of rates.

You're assuming that all people will not want an army. This is obviously false-- some subset of the population clearly wants an army as we have one now. As soon as someone gets an army, you can bet your boots that I'm going to want one and you're going to want one of our own to protect us from their army. This spirals into an arms race, etc, etc, etc...

Once again Anarchist Eden becomes Paradaise Lost.

we

Fortune Favors the Bold

as a species never had anarchy. there is a big confusion here. Anarchy is not the absence of a state with a monopoloy on force. It is the absence of all states. In fact, the trend towards government monopolies arose precisiely because people realized how awful it was when you had competing states (or as it would be looked at more commonly, tribes, or even individuals) all competing to impose their will on others throught violence.

Fortune Favors the Bold

You are wrong.

Whether you believe in the bible, or evolution-- at some point in time there were humans and no governments.

Anarchy is not the absence of a state with a monopoloy on force. It is the absence of all states.

Your statement simply illustrates one of my major reasons for questioning the feasibility of the system: Living in an anarchistic society is dangerous if there are mean old Guberments running around next door. The problem we live in America, the only government we have control over is our own-- how are WE going to get the whole world to go anarchist all at the same time?

What you don't see

Anarchists at Daily Paul have focused on explaining the moral superiority and logical consistency of anarchism leading critics to assume - which they do without study - that nevertheless it can't work, that armies will take over, that competing security services will fight for dominance, that prior "anarchism" failed to maintain itself, etc.

The only failure I see is that the anarchists have not addressed how it is to arrive. Once that is done the minarchist's objections should melt away.

The entire liberty movement is one of education. Ron Paul constitutionalists are in the same boat as anarchists. They will get nowhere until and unless their views become accepted by the bulk of the populace.

Accordingly, if anarchism is to become existant its main tenets will have already prevailed in the court of public opinion - that coercion is not an acceptable method for achieving social ends and that human relations should be voluntarily entered.

There has never in human history been a self-conscious philosophy of anarchism that existed on a large scale. There have been successful "anarchistic" societies that were eventually crushed by outside forces but it would be a stretch to assume their "anarchism" was the result of being thought out such that competing social systems were considered and thrown out. As in 17th century Pennsylvania there was a small anarchistic society but one of simply seeing no point in obeying the dictates of Britain's agents.

Now, however, there is a consistent body of anarchistic thought. Assuming this view gains influence government will wither. Once it withers to the extent Paulian minarchists want is such a populace going to, as you say, "As soon as someone gets an army, you can bet your boots that I'm going to want one and you're going to want one of our own to protect us from their army. This spirals into an arms race, etc, etc, etc..." ? Of course not.

You have ignored the point that the "Dispute Resolution Organisations" (DRO's) would exist like any other business - by serving thei customers. If some DRO did attempt to overpower others by force, which would be utterly opposed by the anarchistic populace, they would have the added problem of losing their revenue base as their customers would not be willing to pay the enomous costs of war. And why would they want war when they enjoy the abundance, peace and freedom of an anrchistic society?

You make the incredible assumption that it is easy to just raise an army and go invade a peaceful, anarchist society and overthrow it. If there is already an existant anarchistic society it, knowledge of its success in the modern world would sperad like wild fire, it would be seen not to pose a threat to other peoples, its full blown free markets would be enormously productive hence capable of defense and the main problem any aggressors would have - as ludicrous as it is to imagine there would even be any - would be to stop their military forces from deserting to join the anarchists - or better yet - ignore the dictates of "their" own government and thereby establish anarchy by default in their own area.

marlow

marlow

Of course,

from YOUR description of what "anarchy" is, then that all sounds so utterly logical.

Unfortunately, 99.999% of all humanity has never heard about anything you're talking about, nor will they have any inclination to do as you think they should.
They will do as they see fit, from their own points of view, which have nothing at all to do with "non-agression theory" or any of the other things which you arbitrarily assign to "anarchy" as your own "made up definition" which coincides with a few dozen other "think tank people".

In the real result, none of you will have any impact whatsoever on what actually occurs. It will all happen as if none of you even exist.
Because in plain terms, none of you will exist as far as the rest of the world is concerned.
They will do as they will.
You will have no say in it.

Therefore, what results is NOT predictable by you, nor anybody else.
But, since practically nobody even knows what "your definition" of anarchy is, it's extraordinarily unlikely that it would prevail. In fact, it's virtually assured that it wouldn't.

I agree that very few people

I agree that very few people are aware of this. Only education by the few who are innovators in ideas, who spread their ideas through "second hand dealers" of ideas (media people) as Hayek referred to them, who in turn popularize ideas in the minds of the masses can eventually allow for such an occurance.

Maybe the vast majority of people will never have an inclination to adopt ananarchistic view, as you suggest.

But at one time everyone "knew" you couldn't sail around the earth. Until very recently in human history chattel slavery was accepted without protest. Yet ideas changed these views - and in an environment where communications were thousands of times slower than today.

Nor is my definition made up. We should all know its derivation is from the Greek, meaning "no ruler". The other aspects of anarchism, such as a society of volunteerism, are correlaries of that.

Still, you may well be correct such a world will never come to be. The same problems of unfamiliarity and liklihood for success can be said for Paulian minarchy. So are you willing to give up the fight? If not, then why should we who would take the last step in reducing state power?

marlow

marlow

Why do Anarchists insist on arguing?

Still, you may well be correct such a world will never come to be. The same problems of unfamiliarity and liklihood for success can be said for Paulian minarchy. So are you willing to give up the fight? If not, then why should we who would take the last step in reducing state power?

The 'Paulian' minarchy, as you have dubbed it, is on the road to the entirely voulteeristic society you advocate (which I agree would be an Eden)-- It is a goal that is attainable within our lifetime, It does not require as radical a shift in thinking, and it still leaves us quite capable of defending ourselves against exterior aggressors which, as you acknowledged in an earlier post are more than capable of ruining anarchistic societies.

It provides us with the opportunity to phase out social programs, curtail our military operations and pay off our debts. Once we've done that we can debate the feasibility of Anarchy and 100% volunteerism, doing so before hand is a waste of time as as you stated earlier we don't have a clear way of getting there anyway.

In short lets all work towards minarchy, you guys go figure out how to get to a 100% volunteeristic society without massive social upheaval and then we'll debate how (and where) we should go.

No, I don't give up the fight.

But I do think that there is merit in restoring the original Constitutional Republic, which is a system which CAN provide most of what is critical, even if there are some very limited and controlled concessions to a "state". But the responsibility for vigilance needs to be forefront.

While I am sympathetic to the definitions of "anarchy" promoted on this site, I am also concerned about the pitfalls, which can easily spiral out into something that we didn't want to occur, but might.

I'm not as "anti-anarchy" as some here might think, but I'm very wary of going from the frying pan into the fire.

Well put.

.

Anarchy = Confusion. This is what we are being provided.

Websters Dictionary
Anarchy : lawlessness; lack of government in a country; confusion.
They are eating up our time.

Demolay: Dictionaries are subsidized by Big Gov't -- smile

Anarchy is a greek word -- let's use the greek shall we?

An=No and Archos=Authority or Sovereignty or Rule (depending on who translates) -- It means Self-Rule.

RP's Minarchy has both small gov't and anarchist principles in it.
----100% Anarchy in the Free-Markets
----100% Anarchy (competition) in Currency Markets
----100% Anarchy (identification) -- Self-Rule -- No Gov't ID's (no drivers licenses - no social security cards - no birth certificates -- none controlled by gov't that is)
----7-12% National and State Sales Tax (probably a small import-export tax on certain goods) all for the purpose of Central Naval Oversight - Central "Federal" Highway Oversight - State Army-Air Guard Oversight - State Highway Oversight

So, in RP's society there are many areas where out-and-out anarchy would prevail -- meaning no-rule ONLY voluntary mediated contracts; that the gov't does not enforce. All "privatized."

Octobox

Because granting 'special' people the right to steal and kill

Is such a better system, right?

The Anarchism people are

The Anarchism people are referring to is not one without laws. Courts still exist- private courts instead of goverment courts. Private defense instead of Government defense.

Then they need to call it something other than anarchism.

People worry that the 911 Truthers are going to give us a bad reputation (which I don't agree with personally), anarchists will shut us out from any consideration by conservatives. We need the conservatives to have a hope of winning back the Republican Party. We don't need all 25 anarchists, or whatever they are.

Well, even if people are

Well, even if people are talking about private courts and private defense replacing public law and public police, as opposed to full blown anarchy where there is no law whatsoever, what would be the real difference?

Anyone could still make up and enforce any damn law that they want, so you still end up with nothing but chaos.

Open your mind to anarchism

It would be nice if you would bother to educate yourself as to how private law would not only work very well but much better than the coercive monopoly that is the world's current slew of legal systems.

I highly recommend everyone read the free books, Practical Anarchy and Everyday Anarchy at freedomainradio.com. There are also a multitude of brilliant educational podcasts on various aspects of free market anarchism there. The Mises Institute also has great books on the subject. Maybe check out the works of Hans Herman Hoppe, economics professor and one of Murray Rothbard's intellectual heirs.

I prefer to refer you to these sites where you can get all the detail and refutation of the nonsense that "private law would lead to chaos" that you will need - and the information will be better than any short blurbs about it here - and I won't have spend an hour writing what you can read there in minutes - which may expand to hours once you become fascinated with how obviously workable, moral, productive and harmonious an anarchic society will be.

I have a question for the minarchists who are so hostile to the idea of anarchism. If we ever achieve a Paulian minimal state, would you then seek to prevent the anarchists among us from setting up and using competing private court, protective security systems, dispute resolution services and compel our support of the alternative governmental functions?

If not, then why object to our efforts to educate people as to the potential for a peaceful world of freedom, mutual respect and abundance that anarchism will usher in?

Most people on this site support free markets in all areas but then many balk with respect to police, courts and national defense, and endorse socialism in those crucial areas. Look into anarchistic theory a little more and you may realize it is not impossible - theoretically or practically.

marlow

marlow

Very Well Said

Very constructive. Thank you.