Political Crossfire Forums

[Robin Hood]

Quote: and the production for one market by many producers in the face of a logical consequence of over production

Perhaps you'd like to give me an example of capitalist over-production?

[Fido]

Robin Hood wrote: Quote: and the production for one market by many producers in the face of a logical consequence of over production

Perhaps you'd like to give me an example of capitalist over-production?

Compared to feudalism, which essentially consumed all that it produced allowing for a minimum of excess for the wealth of non producers like kings and lords examples of capitalist overproduction abound. In fact, before capitalism there was no overproduction, only feast and famine. One of the most obvious examples of over production is automobiles. Almost all families in America have a car, and many have two or three. Cars get old and need to be replaced periodically, and they are. Dealers sell cars, and producers produce cars; but car lots, new and used are full of cars, and manufacturers of various brand produce for the same market, and each drives down wages and increases technological advances to replace the very people who were also once customers. I have worked in many auto plant beside Robots as big as giants, and resembling humans in every respect except as consumers and in having a remote brain. I have a remote brain too, -my wife, but I am a consumer. Anyway, since many cars become obsolete without being purchased, and some are destroyed or given away it serves as an example. Sooner or later, the excess of production leads to war or depression. Engels aid the search for markets cannot keep pace with capital's increased ability to produce. Marx said high profits are synonymous with glut. Once the money has been s*cked out of an economy, depression results unless credit is extended to virtually everyone or new markets are found, or the government gives money away to prime the economy. This is too long winded. I hope you get my point.

[jawsome]

FinnMacCool wrote: Quote:
My point is, if a collective is to work on democratic means, meaning the majority rules, that majority is inherently a form of force and coercion. Group A (the majority) decides for Group B (the minority). I agree with you about democracy. I don't think its such a great system that everyone makes it out to be. But in an anarchist society, there are certain things that aren't going to be solved in a vote. For example, noone is going to vote to exile gays because that infringes on peoples rightsr. Collectives exist soley for economic purposes so the decision making won't go any further then that, I'd imagine.

I've never heard of a collective only existing for economic purposes. Do you know of any examples? From what I know, collectives decide almost everything together, whether it be economic, social, or legal.

I fail to see how a collective could exist where ONLY economic purposes and decisions are made together, unless, of course, there is absolutely no order other than this. Still, a collective that decides economic decisions is still antithetical to anarchist philosophy, in my opinion.

[jawsome]

djolibertas wrote: jawsome wrote:
By the way, I agree with most of your post, but I feel that anarchism can exist. If you live alone off the land and claim nothing as yours. :lol:

I'm not sure if this is meant as a joke, but even if it is, other people have expressed things along the same lines, and I'm completely bewildered by this kind of statement. Why do people have the impression that anarchism is only possible in some sort of secluded, unrealistic context? Why do people think anarchism is at all incompatible with property or human interaction?

Anarchism is as simple as this:

Anarchists strive to maximize their personal freedom, as well as those around them, and only use violence defensively to ensure their freedom.

Yes, this means opposing the government who robs you and imposes arbitrary laws on you, but it does not exclude interaction with others in social and economic contexts. In fact, it encourages these types of interaction even more than a government system, since people are viewed as autonomous and sovereign entities, not as subjects or slaves to law or government.

Yes, there will sometimes be conflict in an anarchist "system" due to the lack of an all-powerful government, however this violence must be seen as traded off against all the violence of the state that is abolished. No states means no mass-scale wars; no constant theft through taxation; no oppression of minorities, religion, or political belief; and no latent violence of the oppression of arbitrary law that serves to enrich the powerful and well-connected in government.

Just as a democratic system need not be perfect to exist, neither does an anarchist system need to be perfect. The same criticisms of anarchism presented here were widely believed to be true of democracy before the American revolution, because democracy was seen as mob rule with no sufficient central authority. It was claimed that political factions would constantly war against each other, rather than respecting the institutions of democracy -- that seems very likely in theory, but it didn't happen because people (and political parties) respected the ideas of democracy, just as they can in the future respect the ideas of anarchism.

I interpret anarchism more along the lines of the absence of power, regardless of its form, whether it be the State, the Collective, etc. Unless one lives in relative isolation, I feel like there will inevitably be some kind of power structure.

[jawsome]

[quote="Nathyn"]
jawsome wrote: Nathyn wrote:

How could corporations exist in the absence of a state? They are, by their very nature, legal constructions. Ergo, the state is a pre-requisite for their existence.


By the way, I agree with most of your post, but I feel that anarchism can exist. If you live alone off the land and claim nothing as yours. :lol:
Because those legal constructions, in the absence of government, would be upheld by the corporations themselves, being that as a result of their legal protection, they have a monopoly on power.

In other words, as I've said before -- in the absence of government, the wealthy become warlords.


If the state were to be dissolved, there would be no legal system, thus there would be nothing to uphold and preserve corporations' identities, privileges, and legal bindings. Sure, they might still be powerful (though I'd argue they'd be significantly less powerful), but they would not be corporations.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: One of the most obvious examples of over production is automobiles. Almost all families in America have a car, and many have two or three. Cars get old and need to be replaced periodically, and they are. Dealers sell cars, and producers produce cars; but car lots, new and used are full of cars, and manufacturers of various brand produce for the same market, and each drives down wages and increases technological advances to replace the very people who were also once customers.

Car lots are full of cars...why? because people are buying lots of them. As more are produced the price falls = VERY GOOD FOR THE BUYER.

Quote: Sooner or later, the excess of production leads to war or depression.

No, more production means lower prices. How is that going to cause war or depression?

Quote: Engels aid the search for markets cannot keep pace with capital's increased ability to produce. Marx said high profits are synonymous with glut. Once the money has been s*cked out of an economy, depression results unless credit is extended to virtually everyone or new markets are found, or the government gives money away to prime the economy. This is too long winded. I hope you get my point.

Marx and Engels were idiots whose understanding didn't even p***k the skin of economics. When production increases prices fall, which means more people can buy. That is all.

Money can not be s*cked out of the economy...as it is only worth as mcuh as what it represents i.e produce....and with more produce that money is worth more. This is just economic nonsense.

[Nathyn]

jawsome wrote: FinnMacCool wrote: Quote:
My point is, if a collective is to work on democratic means, meaning the majority rules, that majority is inherently a form of force and coercion. Group A (the majority) decides for Group B (the minority). I agree with you about democracy. I don't think its such a great system that everyone makes it out to be. But in an anarchist society, there are certain things that aren't going to be solved in a vote. For example, noone is going to vote to exile gays because that infringes on peoples rightsr. Collectives exist soley for economic purposes so the decision making won't go any further then that, I'd imagine.

I've never heard of a collective only existing for economic purposes. Do you know of any examples? From what I know, collectives decide almost everything together, whether it be economic, social, or legal.

I fail to see how a collective could exist where ONLY economic purposes and decisions are made together, unless, of course, there is absolutely no order other than this. Still, a collective that decides economic decisions is still antithetical to anarchist philosophy, in my opinion.
Worker co-ops are an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative

[jawsome]

Nathyn wrote: jawsome wrote: FinnMacCool wrote: Quote:
My point is, if a collective is to work on democratic means, meaning the majority rules, that majority is inherently a form of force and coercion. Group A (the majority) decides for Group B (the minority). I agree with you about democracy. I don't think its such a great system that everyone makes it out to be. But in an anarchist society, there are certain things that aren't going to be solved in a vote. For example, noone is going to vote to exile gays because that infringes on peoples rightsr. Collectives exist soley for economic purposes so the decision making won't go any further then that, I'd imagine.

I've never heard of a collective only existing for economic purposes. Do you know of any examples? From what I know, collectives decide almost everything together, whether it be economic, social, or legal.

I fail to see how a collective could exist where ONLY economic purposes and decisions are made together, unless, of course, there is absolutely no order other than this. Still, a collective that decides economic decisions is still antithetical to anarchist philosophy, in my opinion.
Worker co-ops are an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative

Okay, that makes sense. I was thinking along the lines of a cooperative where people live, as well as work. Thanks for the link.

[djolibertas]

jawsome wrote: djolibertas wrote: jawsome wrote:
By the way, I agree with most of your post, but I feel that anarchism can exist. If you live alone off the land and claim nothing as yours. :lol:

I'm not sure if this is meant as a joke, but even if it is, other people have expressed things along the same lines, and I'm completely bewildered by this kind of statement. Why do people have the impression that anarchism is only possible in some sort of secluded, unrealistic context? Why do people think anarchism is at all incompatible with property or human interaction?

Anarchism is as simple as this:

Anarchists strive to maximize their personal freedom, as well as those around them, and only use violence defensively to ensure their freedom.

Yes, this means opposing the government who robs you and imposes arbitrary laws on you, but it does not exclude interaction with others in social and economic contexts. In fact, it encourages these types of interaction even more than a government system, since people are viewed as autonomous and sovereign entities, not as subjects or slaves to law or government.

Yes, there will sometimes be conflict in an anarchist "system" due to the lack of an all-powerful government, however this violence must be seen as traded off against all the violence of the state that is abolished. No states means no mass-scale wars; no constant theft through taxation; no oppression of minorities, religion, or political belief; and no latent violence of the oppression of arbitrary law that serves to enrich the powerful and well-connected in government.

Just as a democratic system need not be perfect to exist, neither does an anarchist system need to be perfect. The same criticisms of anarchism presented here were widely believed to be true of democracy before the American revolution, because democracy was seen as mob rule with no sufficient central authority. It was claimed that political factions would constantly war against each other, rather than respecting the institutions of democracy -- that seems very likely in theory, but it didn't happen because people (and political parties) respected the ideas of democracy, just as they can in the future respect the ideas of anarchism.

I interpret anarchism more along the lines of the absence of power, regardless of its form, whether it be the State, the Collective, etc. Unless one lives in relative isolation, I feel like there will inevitably be some kind of power structure.

Under that definition, I guess your statement makes sense, but I always view anarchism as excluding only aggressive, coercive power structures. I have no objection to legitimate, voluntary power structures, since these structures are a useful means of organizing, specializing, and bettering the lives of everyone in society. An example of such a voluntary power structure would be a private protection firm, where an individual agrees to be bound by certain rules (i.e. not to violate the rights of others) in return for his rights being defended. Such a power structure would only be legitimate, though, if each individual was free to choose whether or not they wanted to be part of it and pay for it. It is only when an institution seeks to impose its will on others without their consent that I view the institution as being in opposition to anarchism.

Of course some anarchists differ with me on this, and reject literally all forms of structure or authority, voluntary or coercive. I believe it was Lysander Spooner who wrote rather extensively on the distinction between legitimate, earned authority and illegitimate, forceful authority -- I think this is an important distinction to make.

[Canada_Rocks]

hmmm, I remember reading somewhere that anarchists figure that society will adjust into social "networks"..well I agree, that is what we have been doing for the past 20,000 years. The problem is that those social networks need order and control. Eventually people are going to form a gang (for protection, community and whatnot) and that gang will have a leader....then that leader will either TAKE control or the gang will stay democratic.... You see, modern government exists for reason..because it is human nature. I love how anarchists love to shout out Natural rights and what is naturally expected and deserved to humans when a true anarchist society has rarely if not happened due to human nature...and if one has happened it has failed miserably.

[jawsome]

djolibertas wrote: jawsome wrote: djolibertas wrote: jawsome wrote:
By the way, I agree with most of your post, but I feel that anarchism can exist. If you live alone off the land and claim nothing as yours. :lol:

I'm not sure if this is meant as a joke, but even if it is, other people have expressed things along the same lines, and I'm completely bewildered by this kind of statement. Why do people have the impression that anarchism is only possible in some sort of secluded, unrealistic context? Why do people think anarchism is at all incompatible with property or human interaction?

Anarchism is as simple as this:

Anarchists strive to maximize their personal freedom, as well as those around them, and only use violence defensively to ensure their freedom.

Yes, this means opposing the government who robs you and imposes arbitrary laws on you, but it does not exclude interaction with others in social and economic contexts. In fact, it encourages these types of interaction even more than a government system, since people are viewed as autonomous and sovereign entities, not as subjects or slaves to law or government.

Yes, there will sometimes be conflict in an anarchist "system" due to the lack of an all-powerful government, however this violence must be seen as traded off against all the violence of the state that is abolished. No states means no mass-scale wars; no constant theft through taxation; no oppression of minorities, religion, or political belief; and no latent violence of the oppression of arbitrary law that serves to enrich the powerful and well-connected in government.

Just as a democratic system need not be perfect to exist, neither does an anarchist system need to be perfect. The same criticisms of anarchism presented here were widely believed to be true of democracy before the American revolution, because democracy was seen as mob rule with no sufficient central authority. It was claimed that political factions would constantly war against each other, rather than respecting the institutions of democracy -- that seems very likely in theory, but it didn't happen because people (and political parties) respected the ideas of democracy, just as they can in the future respect the ideas of anarchism.

I interpret anarchism more along the lines of the absence of power, regardless of its form, whether it be the State, the Collective, etc. Unless one lives in relative isolation, I feel like there will inevitably be some kind of power structure.

Under that definition, I guess your statement makes sense, but I always view anarchism as excluding only aggressive, coercive power structures. I have no objection to legitimate, voluntary power structures, since these structures are a useful means of organizing, specializing, and bettering the lives of everyone in society. An example of such a voluntary power structure would be a private protection firm, where an individual agrees to be bound by certain rules (i.e. not to violate the rights of others) in return for his rights being defended. Such a power structure would only be legitimate, though, if each individual was free to choose whether or not they wanted to be part of it and pay for it. It is only when an institution seeks to impose its will on others without their consent that I view the institution as being in opposition to anarchism.

I agree that power structures inherently have some kind of legitimacy, or lack thereof, and it is an extremely important distinction to make.

But I do view anarchy to be a complete vacuum of power and coercion--none can exist for there to truly anarchy.

Quote: Of course some anarchists differ with me on this, and reject literally all forms of structure or authority, voluntary or coercive. I believe it was Lysander Spooner who wrote rather extensively on the distinction between legitimate, earned authority and illegitimate, forceful authority -- I think this is an important distinction to make.

I haven't met or talked with, even really heard of, any anarchists who agree with me on my understanding of anarchy. From my (limited) experience, most simply detest what you define as illegitimate, forceful authority, or ones that don't correlate with their ends. So many seem to support state interventions and creations if they judge it to be good (hospitals, healthcare, schools, etc.). I feel like that is a cop-out. If one is to call one's self an anarchist, then one must oppose all forms of government creations.