-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.

Comment viewing options

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

Nop

No wormwoodtwentytwelve.
There are laws.

You shall not steal, kill, enslave.
You shall respect the life/liberty/property of others.

If you respect that, what wrong could you possibly do, what horrible law could you possibly create ?

In one small post, you just ran rings around "none"

who has posted all day.

Anarchy is Holy Individualistic

If you don't understand this, you haven't read Political Justice by William Godwin.

If you don't understand how this relates to Natural Rights, then you haven't studied enough.

If you think Anarchy = Communism, you are seriously mistaken.

Anarchy = Indefinite Perfectibility of Man = essence of the US Constitution

OBJECTIVISM -- Admit when you are wrong, once the facts suggest you are. If you don't, you probably think truth is relative then and if so, go read John Locke. thanks.

No ? after the title of this thread.

Must mean it meets with the approval of the DP censorship and editing minions, so it must be true. Keep up the good work

Probably because the owner

Probably because the owner of this website has devoted it to the restoration of Constitutional government, as opposed to the institution of Anarchy...

Minarchists just don't get it

There have recently been numerous threads addressing "anarchism". Anarchism, as used by the free market anarchists among us has a specific definition: absence of government. Though common usage equates anarchism with "no rules" that is not an aspect of free market anarchism.

As government is an institution enjoying a legal monopoly on the use of force within its jurisdiction, in free market anarchism there is no such legally sanctioned monopoly. However, there will be enforceable rules. They are created and provided for in the marketplace just as is any other good or service, by willing sellers and buyers simply because it is beneficial to the parties to transactions to agree ahead of time on what set of rules will prevail in case of dispute or accident. Marketplace participants will fill the need for these services and those who most effectively provide security and enforcement of contracts will thrive just as will the best providers in any industry.

Considering the infinite array of goods and services made available in free markets that government dominated economies can never match, what is it about those few governmental functions minarchists assert only government can provide, i.e., police, courts,national defense, that precludes them from being provided for by free markets? Why do you minarchists believe that people who can voluntarily cooperate to produce the vast and intricate technologies and systems we have today cannot voluntarily cooperate to produce and make available in the marketplace procedures to protect property and enforce contracts?

Are we not part of a movement extoling liberty? Liberty is not a threat so why back away from following it to its logical conclusion. A free society, that is, a society wherein the only social constraint is to respect the freedom (hence property as well) of others is a society where all social interaction is entered voluntarily. Any degree of government will impinge on that freedom by imposing its dictates on the people.

marlow

marlow

Any non-contractual rules fall out of Anarcho-Capitalism

You are talking about Minarchism.

Property Rights in the Medium to Long run cannot exist in an Anarchist society -- they can exist in a Minarchist society.

What property (title) data base do we rely on when we move from Corporatism to Anarcho-Capitalism -- the Title Departments are all gov't -- there are many disputes over property right now. If tomorrow we go to an Anarcho-Cap society what "forced" courts would take over these cases.

Who would gain control of these "titles" - "deeds" -- Would they go to the highest bidder; how long would there be chaos owing to forgery or counterfeit documents -- wouldn't that lead to all previously controlled Gov't documents to be suspect?

Anarcho-Capitalism would work if you moved to a country where there were no people and no titles -- no authority. You went there with the desire to live the Rothbardian life style. You created an open-sourced database regarding all property -- since, nothing is owned on day 1.

If you have to move a society (from corporatism to anarcho-capitalism) - you will have title disputes and no authority to oversee them.

Octobox

I'm sorry, but I don't

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your post. Are you referring to how "public" property would be privatized? Whether yes or no, I cannot predict how the transition woudl occur - but people faced with problems will come up with solutions that grow out of necessity. I claim no knowledge over the degree of property disputes in the current system, but if its bad, as you say, wouldn't that weigh against the current system? As to no authority to resolve property disputes in the transition to anarcho-capitalism, why could not private courts/mediation agencies/dispute resolution organisations work to resolve conflicts in property titles just as current courts are empowered to do?

marlow

marlow

One at a time I'm sorry, but

One at a time

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your post. Are you referring to how "public" property would be privatized?

Yes -- in a sense. Moving from Corporatism to Anarcho-Capitalism (with no gentle transition - A-Caps never talk about this). The problem being what system of Title Database do we use -- if we are saying that Corporatism is "evil" and rife with theft, as the the approach to societal shift nears don't you think there will be some "grab baggins" by the power elite? I can guarantee it. You'd only need to see a certain level (a tipping point) of land theft or deletion of land-title before the whole system would be viewed as corrupt. Remember banks hold most of the deeds right now -- and banking cartels control them.

I claim no knowledge over the degree of property disputes in the current system, but if its bad, as you say, wouldn't that weigh against the current system?

Yes -- of course.

As to no authority to resolve property disputes in the transition to anarcho-capitalism, why could not private courts/mediation agencies/dispute resolution organisations work to resolve conflicts in property titles just as current courts are empowered to do?

A-Cap courts are "hired" -- they have no "authority" during non-contractual disputes; according to A-Cap society. Anarchos = Voluntary.

There are no "prisons" in an A-Cap society -- not in the medium to long-run -- because there is no taxation in an A-Cap society.

A-Cap is extremely protectful of identity -- There's no State or Central I.D.'s -- No drivers licenses -- No passports -- No Birth Certificates -- No Gov't to regulate these things.

So, how would a private court mediate over non-contractual disputes if they had no "database" of I.D from the old system to search through.

The people would declare the old system corrupt -- thus it's data is corrupt.

Who would hold "authority" over that data -- would you sell it to a private entity -- what rules would you put over them on it's use or distribution? You couldn't in a free-society.

Octobox

Question

How do you have objective law with competing legal apparatuses?

What if someone does not agree to partake in your specific legal framework that you contract with?

Can you contract out with a "self defense" firm that would kill someone if they accidentally stepped on your property? The free market in this case could provide for that service. Would it be righteous?

_________________________________

Freedom - Peace - Prosperity

Name Dropping

Here is an example of utopian thought matured:

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/96295#comment-1059008

Radical.

Thomas Jefferson also said

Thomas Jefferson also said that Adam Weishaupt was "a great humanitarian".

Adam Weishaupt founded the Bavarian Illuminati, was an Anarchist, and was also the first proto-Marxist Jacobin.

And oh yeah, Weishaupt was more than likely still a Jesuit too.

Thomas Jefferson may have been a great man, but no one is perfect.

Weishaupt: could not both be an anarchist and a proto-Marxist

and a Jesuit at the same time -- he would have imploded, hahahaha

Octobox

What can I say, some people

What can I say, some people live sick and twisted lives.

Some priests just molest children, while some priests run global shadow wars, supposedly against "heresy".

Weishaupt's right hand man (Von-Knigge) was convinced that Weishaupt was a Jesuit, and if you take a very close look at the history which surrounds it, I think that it's pretty obvious that the Bavarian Illuminati was something that the Jesuits created/controlled.

The Jesuits were banned for eternity by Pope Clement XIV in 1773, for all of the trouble that they had caused, and then Adam Weishaupt (who was Jesuit trained) created the Bavarian Illuminati in 1776.

Weishaupt modeled the Illuminati after the Jesuit structure, and he preached "Anarcho-Communism" word for word.

The Illuminati grew through Freemasonry, until it was itself banned by the elector of Bavaria, but it had already laid the groundwork for Jacobinism, and the French Revolution followed soon thereafter.

Napoleon was soon installed as the dictator of revolutionary France, by another Jesuit trained individual (Emanuel Joseph Sieyes), and after attacking every Catholic State that had banned the Jesuits, Napoleon invaded Italy and took the Pope hostage.

The second Pope that Napoleon took hostage decided to restore the Jesuit order during his captivity in France.

Of course the Jesuits created the Illuminati.

They aren't even real Catholics, these people are a continuation of the Babylonian priesthood.

WormWood: Don't the Jesuits control

Loyola University System -- or am I mistaken on that?

Octobox

just to address the sub plot of this thread..

I think mankind is inherently good. We get confused over time, but at our core, we're awesome. But for a relative few, we would not need 'government' . When I look around, I see most folks behaving well in spite of all the reasons not to. I also see people willingly helping the young, old and infirmed even though they don't 'have' to. Maybe it's just my little reality, but I think on balance we're made of good stuff.

I think that the natural

I think that the natural side of humanity is the really beautiful part, and I think that our collective suffering is really due to the most sick and preternatural members of our species, who have unfortunately dominated human events for far far far too long.

Nature will flush them out one way or another though, I just hope that we do not all go extinct in the process.

Totalitarian central

Totalitarian central government (Socialism) is exactly what we have in this country. With income tax and property tax, the masses already do share resources, we have a socialist military system and don't forget the government owns mineral rights and controls lands, such as National Parks, ect..; perhaps not shared equally, but that is the illusion presented to the people.
grant

And the sky is green too.

Really.

I provided a logical

I provided a logical explanation as to why I think that the ideas of Communism and Anarchism are similar, so if you disagree, then you could at least give your own arguments, instead of just doing a lame pseudo-impression of my reasoning.

Its really extremely shallow and non amusing.

Please try again.

You attempt to equate anarchism with communisim

Is what's shallow. Keep on trying to spread the fear uncertainty and doubt.

At least I bother to explain

At least I bother to explain my point of view, you are the one making accusations without backing them up.

Wormwood: Let me break-it-down for yah

If you understand "communism" to be Marx's philosophy in his later years than many Communist would argue that you are nearly correct -- as they believe that he moved from involuntary communism (which is what the world got) toward anarchist communism.

If you mean "communism" as an involuntary societal gov't then you are wrong, by definition. An=Not and Archos=Rule or Authority or Sovereignty -- Anarchy translates as Self-Rule or "no rule over me."

My argument is that Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Communism are not mutually exclusive in a Free-Society -- The definion of which is voluntarism. Both can exist side by side as long as they were kept in the short-run. If you try to implement both (or only one) in the long-run you will have to abandon "voluntarism" as each new member of society or new generation is "forced" to commit to those standards of property-ownership / management -- wages and labor -- currency etc etc.

In a free-society there is room for all forms of voluntarism -- there can even be Minarchist communities.

The problem with all "forms" of anarchism is that they are not competitive ideologies in the long-run -- for the reasons I gave above.

Octobox

Well, I just mean that Carl

Well, I just mean that Carl Marx's stated end goal was to establish "society without government".

Maybe regular "Anarchists" don't believe that we need to share everything or have violent revolution to establish "society without government" but they still have the same sill end goal.

That's all that I'm really trying to say I guess.

Not really

Communism is not a political ideology it is a false religious one, Karl Marx came from three generations of Rabbis, http://www.iamthewitness.com/doc/Jews.and.Communism.htm
Anarchy is more like the Pygmies altough I'm sure they have some sort of rules of cultural behavior. They are opposites of sorts.
The Zionist/commies are total control freakazoids, who killed 60 million of their own country men and were not even at war with anyone!
Oh and they took over the US in 1913 {the FED}
http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=407

http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Andrew.Carrington.Hitchco...

And the really bizzare thing is that they are [Khazars} impersonating a Biblical Judaic tribe, or hiding behind a facade of so-called religion [Talmud] to hide to hide their awfull deeds! http://www.iamthewitness.com/doc/Ashkenazis.are.not.the.desc...

My karma ran over your dogma~

Very interesting thread

and I have enjoyed reading all the comments.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

Anarchists don't believe

Anarchists don't believe that all men are good.

We just understand that socialized protection, adjudication, and legislative services are inferior to free market ones.

Men are basically evil. Why would you want a system in which some evil people have authority over others. That's a recipe for tyranny creep.

No government in the history of the world has stayed limited.

Read some Rothbard. Ron Paul even quotes him from time to time.

Tracy

SD Ron Paul liberty Operation up an running.
http://www.southdakotaforliberty.com/

Donate here https://rally.org/southdakotaforliberty/donate
Volunteer for Phone from Home here http://www.southdakotaforliberty.com/node/4

What you fail to understand

What you fail to understand is that there is no "free market" without a common law to protect it.

If anyone can just make up any law that they want, then anyone can steal from, defraud, kill, anyone else, and no one can say that their behavior is not legitimate.

What you will have is chaos, and the evil/powerful people of the world will have a field day.

International Community is an Anarchy

The International Community is currently an anarchy, as there is no over-arching world government/empire, yet there exists international law and treaties between nations.

To argue against anarchy at this level is to argue against national sovereignty at a lower level.

If one is opposed to self-government (or believes it impossible) that would place them firmly in the UN/NWO camp - because all the NWO is trying to do is build a formalized global government.

_______________________________________________________
"Let the good heart speak words of true peace, not inciting others to further war." -- B.I.S.

I am against the idea of one

I am against the idea of one global government, and I favor the idea of sovereign nations whose laws are built around the rights of individuals.

I also like the idea of these types of nations having agreements with each other (treaties) and since treaties constitute a form of international law, then it cannot be said that I am a proponent of complete global anarchy either.

I am however currently a proponent of interplanetary anarchy.