Why I am an anarchist

Also, you can’t have personal property being privately owned with the means of production being controlled “By the People”.

Controlling the means of production means controlling what is produced, how much of it, where, under what circumstances, and who it can be sold to and for how much. 

  You end up with a world where everybody gets their grey jumpsuit, food ration, state-approved entertainment, living quarters, and happy pills.  At that point, who gives a shit if they are 'truly yours' or not? Did workers back in the day truly own the company scrip the received for their labor and could only spend at the company store?

  Private ownership of wealth entails the freedom to exchange that wealth as one sees fit, which entails free market driven economics.  My wealth is only worth something because there are people competing to provide things I want to spend it on.

Bingo!
Pass the man a prize. =D>

Although…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0YRDLMfYxw[/youtube]
and
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNgst8PHfLI[/youtube]

“Cannot below what cost?”
Do-ability and affordability are different things… to most people.

Also true.

Apparently as soon as you back up an idea, you are a ist.

TO ALL: ^ Please pay attention ^

I’ll say it again, I’m neither a Socialist nor a Marxist - I just happen to know stuff about these doctrines that basically everyone on this so-called philosophy forum does not, ESPECIALLY the most vehement detractors from these ideas.
Which pisses me off monumentally.

My bad for using a couple of bits of terminology that I know to be well-defined, but which are frequently used colloquially and irresponsibly by those who don’t know what they’re talking about, and therefore if I use them too I am just as irresponsible and lacking in concrete definition.

No, a group of people are not a single person - I know that. But there is existence in the collective group behaviour of individuals that does not exist when these people are by themselves. A group of people can interract in a very real and existent way, just as organs and cells do in a single human body. Oh, if only the air between us were solid and visible such that individual people could be seen as part of something greater than what they see as themselves, without which they could not continue to be individuals…

The means of production include all individual entities that workers interract with in order to produce something (no shit). Instead of referring to each individual item on the list, for some crazy reason we just say “the means of production” instead.

An artifact of language is not why the USSR etc. happened. I’m well aware that some pretty shitty stuff happened in the name of Socialism and/or Communism. All but a minority of Socialists/Communists are against these things. Seriously, go ask your nearest Socialist “Are you a Stalinist?” or “Are you a Maoist?” etc. They will almost all say no. And why? Because they’re Socialists and/or Communists, and not Authoritarian Totalitarian dictatorship proponents. Go figure. I feel like I’m one of the 99% of Muslims being wrongly accused of terrorism and literal fundamentalism.

I disagree (N.B. even though I am neither a Marxist nor a Socialist).

No he didn’t.

So simple, so true.

Very well said.

Er, yes you can.

Just because all the machinery and electronics etc. (means of production) at my workplace aren’t mine, doesn’t mean I don’t own my own bed and toothbrush.

Sure, why not? And if something is collectively owned, then they all have a say in how they control it… as opposed to if something is individually owned, only one person has a say in how he or she controls it.

It’s not rocket science.

No. You don’t. That’s the movie Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Sure, if you don’t have the economic prohibition to use what you own in order to make more wealth/money, and a non market-led economy.

You wrote this bit backwards, the causation’s all wrong.

Perhaps you’re trying to make the argument that ownership is not ownership without complete control over anything and everything that you can do with your property. To which I respond: under the freest market, you still cannot square a circle. There are always restrictions. “Which ones?” is the only question.

  If something is individually owned, then nobody else SHOULD have a say in how he or she controls it. But if what they are doing with their property is creating a product to sell, then by definition the people they want to sell to have a say on if they buy the product or not.  If the State decides that we only need one kind of toothpaste, then I get the choice of buying it, or letting my teeth rot (possibly both).  
It's also the reality of earning company scrip, which is analogous to what you're talking about.   If the same entity that is issuing you your currency is dictating everything there is available to buy with it and how much it costs, then your economic freedom is a lie, and with it goes any real sense of 'wealth'. 

No, that would be stupid. Only libertarians, Marxists, and Sith lords deal in absolutes.

 True enough.  If I have a dollar, and I can either spent it in a society where multiple companies are competing to provide me with the most appealing product, or I can spent it in a society where the State or "the people" are determining what I'm allowed to buy based on what they've decided is the best for society, I know who is getting my dollar.  And I know how everybody else on earth with the sense to understand the choice is spending their dollar too...which is why Marxist (or 'Marxesque' to avoid that whole thing again) systems always require a totalitarian regime that outlaws capitalism, and capitalist societies can fully allow companies and individuals to behave in a socialist way if they choose to. 
 That's an important point- there is absolutely nothing in American law preventing a bunch of people from getting together and running their company or their lives as though socialism is the law of the land, nothing except [i]the fact that it sucks.[/i] It has to be imposed because nobody would do it by choice. The only advantage of State socialism over community socialism is that State socialism gives you a greater pool of other people's money to spend, so it takes longer for the inherent suckiness to manifest.

The piston will never know who is driving the car, nor who decided to junk it.
It naturally assumes that it is the one doing all of the work and thus in charge.
“Without me, you get nowhere!!”
“Emm…hmm…”

I haven’t called you anything at all.
I was discussing psychological principles and the assumptions implicit in a doctrine, not you.

What matters is how you understand these doctrines and how you present this understanding. No one cares what you vote.

Define “definition”.
I disagree with the notions on which the doctrinal definition is based, I either loathe or fear the states that define the theory in practice.

“Just as organs and cells in a single human body”

If you see humans primarily as a part of a whole, instead of primarily as individual and self-determining, then you are a totalitarian, a socialist, a transhumanist.

I see humans as entities to whom any political or economic whole they belong to is a matter of choice, of character.

Then you acknowledge the logical mistake but use it as a rule anyway.

Proper definitions do not rank very highly in your conception of logic, I see.
A bit eerie, Silhouette.

I see you no longer care to present an argument for your opinion.

Case closed?

It’s really annoying that Das Experiment was banned. He’s the only leftist that keeps making it difficult on the Constitutionalist. The only one who has actually read the relevant Marxist literature, and understands that there is a point to it beyond Marx himself, whom he knows to be, on the whole, a fool. Marxism is primarily a sentiment. There is no logic involved in the basic doctrine, but people have had good ideas on account of it.

Huzzah.

The incredibly naive presumption that contribution does not require a definition of value.
“Use value” is Marxism idea.
Use to what end?
Use to whom?
Use in stead of which other uses?
The list goes on indefinitely, and it becomes more perverse the more I think about it.

The criterium use to define the value of a human life effort… what else could result from it than Auschwitz and the Gulag?

I see socialism in context of human effort as a form of Christianity, nobility in as far as the Proletariat is capable of it.
In state-form it remains wholly consistent with the proletarian attitude - an uneducated guess as to what is of value to the happy man.

I’m more hung up on the word ‘distribution’- the idea that there is some power or another that has everything, and is in the position to decide who gets what and why. I could care less about the criteria, that there is a presumption of an It doing the distributing is enough for me to balk.

People do not “belong” to groups.
Groups are merely agreements amongst the people.

The only concern is “Who or what is making our mutual agreements for us?”

Even the Church only asked for a tenth.

In fact just today I figured that all hospitals, healthcare, and public housing could fall under the Church, known to Catholics as the Holy Mother.
Since we can not get rid of the state directly, I say we push it back to its original form. Back the Church, then to total liberty.
So I know what my values are (though I can’t explain them yet with full clarity) so I’m trying out pragmatism.

The Church is of course Catholic, the state as Majesty.

L’etat est Mort, vive Moi!

In fact the state is already a temple of worship.
Sorry to go about it all illogical now but I need to make a transition in my head from logical to practical thinking. Without of course losing the logical. I think the logic is worked out, and the arrow seems to point to the most economical way being the faith of man in his inexplicable abundance and goodness.

Rationalism hasn’t before been able to explain this.
Both mine and James logics point to the necessity of bestowing and reaping - “karma” - organic nature.

What man can do that a flower can’t is alter his own conditions to his benefit. This means in our world that the scientific man is by definition in circumstances that need to be improved. We need to transcend science into a rationality. Science is not itself rational, it needs to be used rationally.

What is a human, in scientific terms? Absolutely nothing consequential. What is science in human terms? Ultra-consequential… the relationship is skewed.
Science currently values the human in terms of itself. That is to say that the human values himself in terms of a scientific construct, from which it can not escape because it is all he knows.

The ontological tyranny.

Hmmm… I noticed I am talking total nonsense now that I am talking about the Church.
I’ll still post what I wrote just now, but unfortunately I guess we can’t do away with the justice system.

I guess that’s what the constitution was all about…

Sorry about that.

(I prefer to admit mistakes immediately)

Lol.
You’re making it sound like there’s some huge gulf between:
a) workers making something using non-privately-owned materials and means of production and selling it to people who want to either buy it or not, and
b) workers making something using privately owned materials and means of production and selling it people who want to either buy it or not…

That’s the only difference…
Choice still exists - it’s not like as soon as you use non-privately owned things to produce/serve then you’re in an authoritarian totalitarian dictatorship that decides what you can buy. It just means that the produce/service you purchased came from workers not using privately owned things as opposed to using privately owned things. That’s it. No jump to Nineteen Eighty-Four is required. It’s simpler than you seem to think.

This makes no sense. If you receive your pay from within a network of capitalist businesses, and the same network dictates everything there is available to buy with the money they gave you, and how much it costs… then your economic freedom and real sense of ‘wealth’ is NOT a lie? But if the network is “the State” then exactly the same thing IS a lie?

Completely irrelevant, as the choices I am talking about are, yes, spending your money in an economy where “multiple companies competing to provide me with the most appealing product”, but no, not some authoritarian totalitarian dictatorship that determines “what I’m allowed to buy based on what they’ve decided is the best for society”.

Rid yourself of this annoying (not to mention erroneous) association of Socialism with authoritarian totalitarian dictatorships. Please. Just consider the ONLY distinction I’m making here:
Originates:
a) from non-privately-owned materials and means of production, as opposed to
b) from privately owned materials and means of production.

That’s it. I’m repeating myself, but apparently saying it one time is not enough for all you three.
Multiple companies can still compete to provide you with the most appealing product in Socialism SHOCK HORROR. It’s just that origin of their processes are in non-privately owned things, not privately owned things.

Is any of this getting through yet?

I find it ironic when pro-capitalists of any kind, and to any positive degree, speak ill of the idea of “distribution”.

As though the market weren’t a mechanism designed to “distribute” wealth…

I mean, it’s so obvious when you realise it’s exactly the same thing. Except, of course, the market is an intentional mess of ownership → management decisions about how to price their products/services, sort of converging (though constantly dynamically fluctuating of course) on some “average” value that depends on how much they want to take vs. how much consumers want to give… biased by power imbalances of course. But if there’s any kind of centralised moderation → management decisions about how to price products/services etc. etc. then suddenly it’s the devil. God forbid that any centralised control might be directly democratically run and kept in line by literally everybody equally (subject to whether you want to vote or not, and with completely transparent reasoning available to everyone about what options have been thought of and exactly how and why they are predicted to pan out), without power imbalance (from more money equalling more votes) and without the risk of those in power being able to push things in their favour (because they don’t own anything in the workplace any more than anyone else does, so they can’t distort things in their favour). I mean, literally all bases are covered and all you have is an economy based on co-operation, fairness and choice as well as competition…

FC, I was merely quoting what I had said about not being a Socialist or a Marxist. Though what I was quoting wasn’t actually in reply to you, but to Das Experiment.

Is he really banned again? I guess the grounds were that you’re not allowed to use another account once you’ve been banned (presumably until your ban has expired, if there is an expiry). A shame, he’s done nothing but positively contribute since resurrecting himself under his new name. He probably saw it coming though, hence his choice of name.

Yes, and I understand them very reasonably, and a lot better than anyone else seems to here.
And in a democracy (especially in a direct one), my vote is (allegedly) cared about thank you very much - even if only to an incredibly tiny relative extent.

I simply take into account the bigger picture, whilst not forgetting the individual picture. I attempt to transcend humanism and transhumanism - in order to sufficiently present Socialism (or at least my own ideology) accurately.

What’s illogical about using the name of a set, rather than the individual elements within that set? Especially if it is obvious that I’m only talking about the concrete individual elements within the set, but more succinctly.

What’s improper about using the definitions presented by the founders of the doctrines in question? And as a minor point, logic can only happen after definitions.

Reason being that I am being led into a trap:
If I speak of my own ideas, I am lazily dismissed as a Socialist and/or Marxist because of the existence of some common ground, regardless of any differences.
And if I clarify Socialism and/or Marxism in order to educate and also elucidate the differences between it and my own ideas, I am criticised for not speaking of my own arguments.

It’s dishonest and dis-intellectual. The highest sin in my holy book.

Hey Silhouette,

One gigantic thread about the evils of socialism and capitalism is about all I have time for in a day. Feel free to take points you made that you feel demand a response and stick them over in our other discussion.

Okay… heat of the moment.

Yes, they banned his person, not just his login.
Logical in a sense but a shame. It’s dead here since he’s banned. No idea if it’s causal.

For me, I realize my vote is purely symbolic. I’ve never had a party enter the cabinet on my vote that hadn’t in deliberations shed all intentions on the basis of which I voted for it.

And I understand socialism and communism as well as I think can be expected of a modern since I not only live in what used to be an advanced socialist state, I grew up in the inner circle of the communist party and have seen how the motivation eroded after the wall came down and the Union fell. I have been able to document precisely what did and what doesn’t work.

A lot of it worked and is better than now. But I saw how much what was good about socialism became what’s bad about bureaucracy. It couldn’t last.

I asked what possible good could come of it save the Gulag, the answer is “good intentions”, a lot of them, and a lot of good people to hold them.

It was good for a while. But it had to turn into what it’s become.
Human nature.
If I am not mistaken, what we’re experiencing now wasn’t charted by Marx. Power is more clever even than Marx could predict.
It turned out to be possible to satisfy the proletariat indefinitely without bringing about the Revolution.

Or so it seems. Power differences are more extreme than they were in Marx time, and yet European proletarians are more wealthy.

Who doesn’t take into account the bigger picture? That is what politics and even more so philosophy is about.
for a moment there you exposed socialisms worst logical flaw - to think that the human species can be interpreted as a “set” without doing damage to the very concept of individuality.

The individual is boundless. When left to his devices, this produces the bounty of industry and trade.
When over regulated, the human spirit becomes diseased.

The human being was born to deal with the harshness of the world. Denying him this harshness makes him sick and obsolete to himself.

All these are deeply masculine principles and I understand that in practice the caring part needs to be institutionalized somewhat. But I see this as family foremost.

I’m surprised at how conservative I am, but after all I’ve seen there’s not much else left to be.
The state is irrelevant when you’ve got a community of rational minds.

A guy quoted another guy in the paper yesterday: “The mere existence of the state suggests that the human being is infantile.” I agree with that wholeheartedly.

The logic of this is quite irrefutable, even though it is not denied thereby that the human is not in fact infantile.
Still. I say give him the benefit of the doubt. At least, those who wish to take care of themselves, let them.
Even apes can take care of themselves. WTF, honestly. W’ere the only species that doesn’t just cage other species, but even itself.

If you’re going to make a set that’s coherent, you can’t just take ‘human beings’ as its components.
You’ll need to take the entire spectrum of organic life and its conditions with you.
“Human Being” is artificial and therefore abusive term.

I don’t expect you’ll follow me into this marxist French type of analysis, but I’ll say it anyway. The very fact that we think of ourselves as the signifiers of a species causes the violence of race and creed and wars of attrition. The forced “set” around us is what makes us the most ugly and jealous among the Earths residents. And my own generosity and beauty is only caused by my will to stand free of this set and be an actual entity who doesn’t need to be told to be good to his fellow Earthlings.

Of course, I just do not wish to define other humans to the point of fitting them in a set. As such VO breaks with the notion of a set as representing the full content of its components.

As follows from my definitions, I can not nor can any creature like be fitted in the set that is defined by anyone else but itself/myself.

I believe that individualized interest generally serves the world and collectivized interest never.

It’s the heat of the moment. You have to be able to withstand fierce attacks if you’re defining something as ambiguous and self-contradicting as socialism.

All I’m saying is don’t even think of moving in the direction of Magsj. I for one respect almost nothing more than an individual adjusting his opinion after listening to valid arguments, and really don’t care for anyones intellectual pride. And you’re not going to stand there tell me I don’t know socialism. There’s hardly a position thinkable from which one could have observed it with more clarity. I’m 2 degrees of separation from Mao and 3 from Stalin, and yet I’ve grown up in the most tranquil socialist environment a state has probably ever produced.

Vices and virtues are known to me. Virtues ultimately just human virtues, the vices are truly robotic.