Democracy does not make a government legitimate. Nothing does.

[Baba Yaga]

Naïve and stupid. The "state of nature" Hobbes spoke of if what anarchy would cause.

And what piece of anarchist literature have you read in your entire life?

The issue is the necessity of voluntarism - a Kibbutz is a self-forming group of a larger whole. For large-scale state Communism, you need a government to distribute resources with impunity. Anyone who wants to keep what they earn/make/produce cannot be tolerated, to say nothing of purging the compliant simply to instil compliance with such a regime. Even then, the underlying assumption that the state is best placed to allocate resources is fundamentally flawed, as evidenced by the numerous state-instigated famines throughout history or the dire economic situation in Venezuela today.

This is kind of what I meant by transition. Instead of using the state to punish people that don't play by the rules in some large sweeping change that takes place overnight, communities would instead.

 

[Pokemon Fan]

America isn't a true democracy. It's a democratic republic. I think.

Indeed, this is a basic misunderstanding many have about the U.S. Our system has many democratic aspects but its not a true democracy and it wasn't meant to be. Making it a republic was to try to reduce the problems that come from a true democracy.

For those who don't know TC, he's not saying that there's a better government type that democracy. He's an anarchist. I've had discussions through vm in the past with him about this, but he stopped responding. This was my last reply.

I figured as much. After all this topic includes the line "nothing does," which implies there is no form of legitimate government, which means you can do whatever you want if its okay by your own moral code, which is the thinking of an anarchist.

This topic's starter also seems to think that laws and morals are the same thing. Laws are meant to help society function, protect people, and, yes, control people to some extent. But whether something is "right" or "wrong" is not a requirement for a law. There is overlap of course, but they are not inherently the same thing.

As for communism, the root trouble with it has always seemed to me to be that it assumes the best of people (including the government) rather than the worst. In an ideal world where people did not have selfish tendencies it could work on a large scale, but such a world does not exist. For all the flaws of governments like the U.S. none have killed their own people by the millions the way various communist governments have.

 

[Baba Yaga]

Indeed, this is a basic misunderstanding many have about the U.S. Our system has many democratic aspects but its not a true democracy and it wasn't meant to be. Making it a republic was to try to reduce the problems that come from a true democracy.


I figured as much. After all this topic includes the line "nothing does," which implies there is no form of legitimate government, which means you can do whatever you want if its okay by your own moral code, which is the thinking of an anarchist.

This topic's starter also seems to think that laws and morals are the same thing. Laws are meant to help society function, protect people, and, yes, control people to some extent. But whether something is "right" or "wrong" is not a requirement for a law. There is overlap of course, but they are not inherently the same thing.

As for communism, the root trouble with it has always seemed to me to be that it assumes the best of people (including the government) rather than the worst. In an ideal world where people did not have selfish tendencies it could work on a large scale, but such a world does not exist. For all the flaws of governments like the U.S. none have killed their own people by the millions the way various communist governments have.

*sigh*

Being anarchist has nothing to do with "doing whatever you want as long as it conforms to your moral code."

As usual members here are commenting on subjects they know jack about and can't be bothered to even do a quick google search to give the illusion of knowledgability.

https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/6416-Making-Sense-of-Anarchism-Anarchism-for-Dummies

Turns out anarchism, like most political philosophy, is diverse and complicated. The core of anarchist philosophy isn't "chaos" or some sort of "free for all" society where anything goes but rather the rejection of the "necessity" for man to be dominated and or ruled over.

 

[Sadib]

If we don't have a government, who's going to look after the little guy?

 

[Mordent99]

So tell me, BY, what exactly is your definition of "anarchy"?

As far as I know, it means "no government", and damned if I know how a society can function without one.

How would emergency services, health services, and other things that made life essential be handled? What's to prevent a small group from hording it all for themselves and letting the poor starve? (Or worse, demanding "favors" from them in return for sharing?) Doesn't seem like much of a society.

 

[Scammel]

Indeed, this is a basic misunderstanding many have about the U.S. Our system has many democratic aspects but its not a true democracy and it wasn't meant to be. Making it a republic was to try to reduce the problems that come from a true democracy.

Interestingly, the American definition of a republic is apparently restricted to America - it confused me at first. The rest of the world understands the same dichotomy as direct vs representative democracy, and a republic is simply a democratic state lacking a monarchy.

If we don't have a government, who's going to look after the little guy?

I think the little guy is best-placed to look after himself in a myriad variety of ways. He's the best at exercising his social and economic freedoms, managing his private property and accounting for his own social mobility, be that upwards or downwards.

The state, on the other hand, is best placed to guarantee those freedoms and set the conditions where the little guy's personal decisions are the most important determinant of his own trajectory. The state guarantees the property rights that enable him to invest productively, protects his free speech, safeguards against arbitrary unemployment, sets regulations to protect his savings from financial malpractice, pays the police to protect his wellbeing and assets, etc. Some might argue that the state has only partial responsibility to look after his health, hence various full or partial insurance models (both US and European varieties), or outright welfare state organisations such as the UK NHS.

Communism and anarchy undermine those responsibilities from two different angles. The former outright abolishes private property rights, the latter fails to protect them without effective centralisation of power.

 

[The Admiral]

If we don't have a government, who's going to look after the little guy?

If you think only government can "look after the little guy," you have some things very backwards.

 

[Sadib]

If you think only government can "look after the little guy," you have some things very backwards.

Thanks for not answering my question.

 

[Mordent99]

If you think only government can "look after the little guy," you have some things very backwards.

Yeah, charities can too, but it's tough when the government uses smear campaigns to discredit them, telling everyone such organizations are criminals and then deny them funding.

So please answer his question.

Interestingly, the American definition of a republic is apparently restricted to America - it confused me at first. The rest of the world understands the same dichotomy as direct vs representative democracy, and a republic is simply a democratic state lacking a monarchy.

People tend to have problems with definitions these days.

For example, "Conservative" used to have a different meaning than it does now. To be blunt, the word should not be used to describe someone who is opposed to change of any sort, let alone somebody who wants to turn the clock back to an earlier era. That is a reactionary, and such people are actually quite rare nowadays. A conservative merely argues that things should not be changed if it is not absolutely necessary to do so, or that change should come as gradually as possible. Many conservatives in the past have been willing to accept economic reform (and, to a lesser extent, social reform) as long as the cultural norms of civilization itself were left untouched.

 

[The Admiral]

Thanks for not answering my question.

You're welcome.

People tend to have problems with definitions these days.

For example, "Conservative" used to have a different meaning than it does now. To be blunt, the word should not be used to describe someone who is opposed to change of any sort, let alone somebody who wants to turn the clock back to an earlier era. That is a reactionary, and such people are actually quite rare nowadays. A conservative merely argues that things should not be changed if it is not absolutely necessary to do so, or that change should come as gradually as possible. Many conservatives in the past have been willing to accept economic reform (and, to a lesser extent, social reform) as long as the cultural norms of civilization itself were left untouched.

I think it's also a problem with the fact that "reactionary" is a term that's wildly underused in the main discourse, while "conservative" sees significantly more use. Folks tend to follow those patterns.

So, eh. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Baba Yaga]

So tell me, BY, what exactly is your definition of "anarchy"?

As far as I know, it means "no government", and damned if I know how a society can function without one.

How would emergency services, health services, and other things that made life essential be handled? What's to prevent a small group from hording it all for themselves and letting the poor starve? (Or worse, demanding "favors" from them in return for sharing?) Doesn't seem like much of a society.

I refer you to Spain, post 1936 anarchist revolution.

 

[lemoncatpower]

I'm sure that's a great relief to the victims of Russian collectivisation, the crushing of the Hungarian Uprising, the Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap Forward, the Khmer Rouge, Tiananmen Square, the Red Holocaust, the Kims, Angolan famine, gulags worldwide, etc.

Slaughter is absolutely the rule, not the exception.

Russian Collectivism - egalitarianism didn't help, the church especially didn't help, also it's very authoritative. That doesn't sound just like communism to me.
Hungarian Uprising - not due to communism, although Russia was involved. Russia isn't just communism, it loves to oppress others and is authoritarian. It's not the communism that killed the revolt but other reasons.
Cultural Revolution - AGAIN, one person thinkin he can control a whole country. NOT Communism, but authoritarianism that seemed to be the corrupt part.
The Great Leap Forward - See cultural revolution
The Khmer Rouge - corrupt dictatorship
tiananmen square - corruption

now it's SO easy to just be like "oh em geee communists ruin everything and they're murderers" and then you don't really have to think about it anymore, but it's actually beneficial to look deeper into the reasoning why these events did not work out.

I'm not arguing that we should be communism, but to just say communism is the problem is just using it as a scapegoat.

I think it's the same as saying that there's a single country in this world is democratic. We don't have a single FULLY democratic country on this planet.