Capitalism *is* compatible with anarchism

[jack]

Okay, refute it, saying you can do shit is nothing unless you can back it up.

[Tiecuando]

Okay, refute it, saying you can do shit is nothing unless you can back it up.

Point two doesn't need to be refuted because it's just you insulting me, and you did start it. Point three doesn't need to be refuted either because in the end it was just you saying wikipedia isn't valid because they entered "Henry David Thoreau" twice in the same sentence, which isn't even saying anything.

So, onto point one, you said "Okay, and I'm pretty sure that racists feel they're being repressed or diminated by the peoples they hate. Which is why, if left open to the individual interpretation which you advocate, you'd have to accept racists as anarchists. But those were just examples, your ideas are bullshit and you have no justification for them."

Well, it is possible for anyone of any creed to be racist, racism is just not liking someone who looks different from you. Secondly, yes, in order for someone to be an anarchist, they have to be against being coerced, and to reciprocate, that is all. In my opinion, this wasn't saying much on your part either. You're being a jerk for the sake of being a jerk, end of story.

P.S. You told me I used incorrect grammar, take a good look at what I quoted from you. It was a direct copy and paste.

[Anarchological]

I have to laugh, Jack. You said " get the fuck off of this board, as well as Anarchist Black Cat, nobody anywhere likes you, appreciates what you have to say, or cares about you as more than a mere annoyance."

As a free and equal human being why would I let myself be censured, commanded, or dictated to by you?

[thelastindividual]

1. I hate the state, and being dominated/controlled in general. Ergo, I am an anarchist.

If you hate those things you should advocate communism. You don't ergo you are not an anarchist.

2. You do not need to be part of a movement to be an anarchist.

Yes you do. Otherwise what in the bleeding fuck is the point? I've heard and met "anarchists" who refuse to be a part of mass movements and look down on the working classes as ignorant lower-life forms unable to emancipate themselves.

You might as well give up now. If you refuse to take part in any kind of mass movement then you're bound to fail. This is why collectivist forms of anarchism are the only true forms of anarchism, because despite their supposed "authoritarianism" they are the only forms of anarchism capable of actually abolishing the state.

3. Socialists advocate state control over the means of production

If you'd bothered to take the time to read some socialist literature instead of reading the propaganda spewed by the political right you'd know that was false. All socialists from the 19th century to the present day have advocated worker control over the means of production. Here's a sample:

“The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer. What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence.....All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.” - Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto

“Ownership by the workers in common of the instruments of production; that means a co-operative system of production and the extinction of the exploitation of the workers, who become masters of their own products and who themselves appropriate the surplus of which they are deprived by the capitalist.” - Karl Kautsky, The Class Struggle

“All social evils without exception have their source in the social order, which at present is based on capitalism, on the capitalist mode of production. The capitalist class is the owner of all means of production — land, mines and quarries, raw materials, implements, tools, means of communications — and thereby exploits and oppresses that vast majority of the people, this resulting in the growing insecurity, oppression and degradation of the exploited classes. Accordingly, the shortest and quickest step would be to transform capitalist property into social property” - August Bebel, Society of the Future

"Mastery over production by the producers is the essence of socialism" - Noam Chomsky, The Soviet Union Versus Socialism

“All socialists....hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear; and that all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by the producers of wealth.” - Peter Kropotkin, Anarchist Communism: It's Basics and Principles

“The basic question: who manages production after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie? should therefore now become the centre of any serious discussion about socialism.....'Workers power' cannot be identified or equated with the power of the Party” - Maurice Brinton, The Bolsheviks and Workers control: The State and Counter-Revolution

“Out of all this bloody confusion, this yawning abyss, there is no help, no escape, no rescue other than socialism....Down with the wage system! That is the slogan of the hour! Instead of wage labor and class rule there must be collective labor. The means of production must cease to be the monopoly of a single class.....In place of the employers and their wage slaves, free working comrades!” - Rosa Luxemburg, What does the Spartacus League Want?

“The consummating act of working-class emancipation must be achieved by the toilers taking and holding the product of their labor through an economic organization of the working class” - Daniel DeLeon, Socialist Reconstruction of Society

You can of course hold onto the belief that socialism means control by the state, of course that would be a blatant strawman but it's never seemed to bother right-wingers before.

[Tiecuando]

I am an anarchist. I question whether or not you "anarcho-plus" people are anarchists. Neither you, nor your traditions, nor your dogma get to decide what being an anarchist is all about. Period.

[thelastindividual]

I am an anarchist. I question whether or not you "anarcho-plus" people are anarchists. Neither you, nor your traditions, nor your dogma get to decide what being an anarchist is all about. Period.

Fine then, if you want to talk abstract ideologyy, lets talk abstract ideology.

Let's admit that "anarchism" is simply defined as the rejection of authority.

So then, why would someone who explicitly rejects authority accept the authority of the boss? Capitalism is always thought of as a free and voluntary interaction between individuals trading property and services, but within capitalism exist large corporations. Within these corporations the suppose voluntarism of the capitalist market place is suppressed in favour of the dictatorship of the property owner. Why do you accept this dictatorship? If you accept the need for production of goods and services in the most anti-authoritarian way surely the best way to organise the work place is through the least authoritarian system of organisation possible i.e direct democracy?

Have you ever even worked a job? Do you know how shitty it is taking orders from someone who pockets most of what you create and then justifies this in the name of the sacred overlord of private property.

Moving out of the realm of abstractions - Yes we do get to define what being an anarchist is all about. We're the ones who are organised and fighting right now for the abolition of the state, we're the ones who have fought throughout history for this goal. We've been going at it for some 150 years now and have had quite a few successes.

Individualist anarchism has been going for even longer than that, so what has it achieved? It part-founded a political party that explicitly rejected anarchism two years ago. Apart from that you've never been organised or fought in any significant way. You can call yourself an anarchist all you want, but in the end we'll be the ones who come out on top, because we're organised.

[Tiecuando]

The state can DISorganize you, but they can't disorganize me. That's what being an individual is all about, I'm indivisible.

[thelastindividual]

Whatever, there really isn't much point talking to someone as myopic as yourself. Enjoy being ignored

[Tiecuando]

I think you and jack are archists.

[jack]

The state can DISorganize you, but they can't disorganize me. That's what being an individual is all about, I'm indivisible.

So is 0, which is about the influence you can have as an individual.

I am an anarchist. I question whether or not you "anarcho-plus" people are anarchists. Neither you, nor your traditions, nor your dogma get to decide what being an anarchist is all about. Period.

We know this, but your stupid ideas don't get to decide what Anarchism is. It's been established, we're following in the footsteps of Anarchists long dead, not making shit up.

As a free and equal human being why would I let myself be censured, commanded, or dictated to by you?

Because I'm awesome and people generally like me, and I actually know what I'm talking about. If you can get anywhere close to that I'll stop calling you a cunt. I'll probably also move to get you banned from ABC, the fact that you haven't been uber-spamming with your bullshit is the only thing that hasn't gotten you kicked yet.

[Tiecuando]

The state can DISorganize you, but they can't disorganize me. That's what being an individual is all about, I'm indivisible.

So is 0, which is about the influence you can have as an individual.

I am an anarchist. I question whether or not you "anarcho-plus" people are anarchists. Neither you, nor your traditions, nor your dogma get to decide what being an anarchist is all about. Period.

We know this, but your stupid ideas don't get to decide what Anarchism is. It's been established, we're following in the footsteps of Anarchists long dead, not making shit up.

As a free and equal human being why would I let myself be censured, commanded, or dictated to by you?

Because I'm awesome and people generally like me, and I actually know what I'm talking about. If you can get anywhere close to that I'll stop calling you a cunt. I'll probably also move to get you banned from ABC, the fact that you haven't been uber-spamming with your bullshit is the only thing that hasn't gotten you kicked yet.

1. Influence? Who are you? What "influence" do you have?

2. I know what anarchism is, you're acting like the opposite of one right now.

3. How authoritarian of you.

[jack]

1. Influence? Who are you? What "influence" do you have?

I'm a key organizer in a (currently still forming) statewide coalition to aid Haiti. I'm also in a student anti-war organization.

2. I know what anarchism is, you're acting like the opposite of one right now.

How? By having ideological consistancy? By not letting people self-define terms?

3. How authoritarian of you.

Okay. So if I were to post child porn all over this forum, that'd be fine? He's disrupting shit on a forum that's designed for anarchists. Would it be better if we let the place fill up with liberals, nazis, and your kind while still calling it an anarchist forum?

[Guest]

Jack,
You mention child porn. I can remember back in Demarest school in Bloomfleid, New Jersey, probably in l955 when I was in 5th grade, I was in love with a classmate, Carol Reeve. At recess Bobby Hamilton bet me a quarter that I wouldn't kiss her. She was standing up against the school building and I ran up and tried to kiss her and she jumped back and banged her head against the brick wall and started crying. That probably wasn't the worst of my great moves. But, at least, I feel lucky to have always been attracted to women my own age, and now in my 60's, you may think that I lying, but I'm still mainly attracted to women my own age, although I must admit that I find that exercise lady Michaels mighty sweet. I know that this doesn't belong in this thread, but I just came back from from a great dinner at Pastiche where I had a lot to drink, and I want to mention that although I am not in the least attracted to kids in a sexual way, that I can vaguely understand how an older person might retain some kind of a juvenile mentality and still be sexually attracted to nine-year olds, even to the point of accidentally injuring them. What is comepletely beyond me is why someone would purposely hurt or kill them, but that is probably something for a psychology forum.

[Guest]

P.S. I forgot to sign it, but the above post is from your arch-villain "an-cap".

[Tiecuando]

1. Influence? Who are you? What "influence" do you have?

I'm a key organizer in a (currently still forming) statewide coalition to aid Haiti. I'm also in a student anti-war organization.

2. I know what anarchism is, you're acting like the opposite of one right now.

How? By having ideological consistancy? By not letting people self-define terms?

3. How authoritarian of you.

Okay. So if I were to post child porn all over this forum, that'd be fine? He's disrupting shit on a forum that's designed for anarchists. Would it be better if we let the place fill up with liberals, nazis, and your kind while still calling it an anarchist forum?

You drew me into "refuting your points" before, after I decided to go to the route of the issue. I said you don't have to be part syndicalist, socialist, or communist to be an anarchist. That's what it was all about, and you insulted me by claiming "you're not an anarchist". You have a terrible case of "lastwordism", you know that?