Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Anarcho-Communism

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 10:23:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How does Anarcho-Communism solve the coordination problem?
You have a society with millions of people, and doing anything requires the coordination and cooperation of a large number of those people. Somebody has to harvest the food, turn the food into cereal, deliver it to you, and take care of all the intermediate steps. How does AnComm coordinate that? The Mutualist and AnCap way is to use the price system and expand it to include the things that government currently does (e.g. law, courts, defense). That seems to be a much more believable story than to assume that somehow in an unexplained way, everything will turn out alright. How does AnComm solve this coordination problem?

Imagine your ideal AnComm society. Now, answer yes or no to the following questions:

1) Would I be allowed to leave your AnComm society?
2) Would I be allowed to employ people voluntarily?
3) Would I be allowed to trade with people using commodity money or digital currency?
4) Would I be allowed to use a price system to coordinate activities between myself and others?
5) Would I be allowed to send my children to schools where they will not be indoctrinate into Communist ways of thinking?

If you answered no to any of the above, would you use coercion to prevent me from doing so?

If your society requires initiatory violence to prevent people from voluntarily interacting in mutually beneficial ways, then why should anyone want to join it?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 10:39:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 10:23:41 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
How does Anarcho-Communism solve the coordination problem?

Small scale federations of commune style economic setups organized freely and collectively with one another via either immediately recallable and democratically elected delegates or through some other method of coordination. The coordination problem is a gradient. A single country out of two hundred would be bad off epistemically because there's only a small amount of economic actors to make ripples via their production decisions. A single county on the other hand out of thousands within a single country (ignore for the moment the fact that countries as political institutions wouldn't exist in AnCom) would obviously be much better off epistemically speaking than a national scale socialist economy. Markets work best when there're plenty of competitive producers and other economic actors. I don't think AnCom's deny this (in the sense I'm describing "working" as producing economic efficiency). The way I see it AnCom just qualifies this as a secondary principle predicated where it is compatible with the first order principles of equality/liberty broadly defined. Small scale federations work well as a pragmatic compromise that's within the primary ethical standard which they support.

Imagine your ideal AnComm society. Now, answer yes or no to the following questions:

1) Would I be allowed to leave your AnComm society?

Yesh

2) Would I be allowed to employ people voluntarily?

Depends on how the society is organized. If it's a straight up commune than no. If it's a freely organized community in which for-use production happens to be the primary mode of economic organization than I can't see why not.

3) Would I be allowed to trade with people using commodity money or digital currency?

See (2)

4) Would I be allowed to use a price system to coordinate activities between myself and others?

(2)

5) Would I be allowed to send my children to schools where they will not be indoctrinate into Communist ways of thinking?

This question just seems silly to me.

If you answered no to any of the above, would you use coercion to prevent me from doing so?

If your society requires initiatory violence to prevent people from voluntarily interacting in mutually beneficial ways, then why should anyone want to join it?

If someone does answer in the method outlines than they most likely didn't predicate their philosophy on voluntaristic prescriptions. Now it's just gonna be "my ethics are better than yurz!!1". My own answer was tentative on the specifics of that society. If it's a commune than that represents imo a legitimate form of property (broadly defined) between the collective owners.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 5:25:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Socialpinko's answer was excellent. I am never going to deny that markets are more efficient than government-controlled labor, but efficiency is not one of my values. I support equality and respect for human dignity. Those take precedence over maximizing wealth for some.

My main concern is that AnCap would just collapse into a corporatist state.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 6:19:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 10:23:41 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
The Mutualist and AnCap way is to use the price system and expand it to include the things that government currently does (e.g. law, courts, defense).

How much would it cost to put you someplace where I wouldn't have to hear this garbage any longer?

If the price for your lifetime conviction is reasonable, and the punishment is the removal of your tongue and fingers, as well as your confinement, I may just support you in your AnCap ways and begin saving for the glorious day that the government hands over its duties to private citizens.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 7:50:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 6:19:59 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/19/2013 10:23:41 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
The Mutualist and AnCap way is to use the price system and expand it to include the things that government currently does (e.g. law, courts, defense).

How much would it cost to put you someplace where I wouldn't have to hear this garbage any longer?

If the price for your lifetime conviction is reasonable, and the punishment is the removal of your tongue and fingers, as well as your confinement, I may just support you in your AnCap ways and begin saving for the glorious day that the government hands over its duties to private citizens.

Please stop.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 10:03:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 7:50:11 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/20/2013 6:19:59 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/19/2013 10:23:41 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
The Mutualist and AnCap way is to use the price system and expand it to include the things that government currently does (e.g. law, courts, defense).

How much would it cost to put you someplace where I wouldn't have to hear this garbage any longer?

If the price for your lifetime conviction is reasonable, and the punishment is the removal of your tongue and fingers, as well as your confinement, I may just support you in your AnCap ways and begin saving for the glorious day that the government hands over its duties to private citizens.

Please stop.

I would just prefer that he be reasonable... but that's a bit much to ask, it would seem.
Tsar of DDO
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 11:48:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 10:03:06 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/20/2013 7:50:11 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/20/2013 6:19:59 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/19/2013 10:23:41 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
The Mutualist and AnCap way is to use the price system and expand it to include the things that government currently does (e.g. law, courts, defense).

How much would it cost to put you someplace where I wouldn't have to hear this garbage any longer?

If the price for your lifetime conviction is reasonable, and the punishment is the removal of your tongue and fingers, as well as your confinement, I may just support you in your AnCap ways and begin saving for the glorious day that the government hands over its duties to private citizens.

Please stop.

I would just prefer that he be reasonable... but that's a bit much to ask, it would seem.

I asked a question. What is so unreasonable about that?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Lizard
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 11:54:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I never "got" anarcho-communism. If people wouldn't follow the communist ideology with a government (a la USSR), whose going to force them to without a government?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 12:03:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 11:54:14 AM, Lizard wrote:
I never "got" anarcho-communism. If people wouldn't follow the communist ideology with a government (a la USSR), whose going to force them to without a government?

The point is that no one is forced. It's a voluntary, collectvist setup.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 12:05:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 10:39:55 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 3/19/2013 10:23:41 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
How does Anarcho-Communism solve the coordination problem?

Small scale federations of commune style economic setups organized freely and collectively with one another via either immediately recallable and democratically elected delegates or through some other method of coordination. The coordination problem is a gradient. A single country out of two hundred would be bad off epistemically because there's only a small amount of economic actors to make ripples via their production decisions. A single county on the other hand out of thousands within a single country (ignore for the moment the fact that countries as political institutions wouldn't exist in AnCom) would obviously be much better off epistemically speaking than a national scale socialist economy. Markets work best when there're plenty of competitive producers and other economic actors. I don't think AnCom's deny this (in the sense I'm describing "working" as producing economic efficiency). The way I see it AnCom just qualifies this as a secondary principle predicated where it is compatible with the first order principles of equality/liberty broadly defined. Small scale federations work well as a pragmatic compromise that's within the primary ethical standard which they support.

I'd still consider that capitalistic in a sense though. It's communism on the microscale but capitalist on the macroscale, since communes are free trading with one another.

Now, this I don't have a problem with. However, this type of formation exists pretty extensively in modern-day society. Israeli kibbutz's operate on this model. The amish are another famous example of this. There are plenty of communes one can find if you do a simple google search. I believe innomen supports communes, but he's hardly an-communisms.

I personally wouldn't want to live on a commune. If not because most communes tend to be incredibly leftist in nature and probably exists of people I wouldn't want to interact with on a day to day basis. If I had to choose, I'd probably choose a religious commune although I'm not particularly religious myself. There are costs and harms associated with it. However, I can understand the desire to be part of one.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 12:17:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
All forms of anarchy that I have seen (especially ancapism) are wishful thinking. It's really quite sad how many teenagers think they know better than 7,000 years of statecraft. I also find it incredibly sad that royal's idea of making a case for anarchism is talking about prestate tribal societies, and then endorsing Spinko's answer like she had the slightest education in what he was talking about.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 12:28:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 12:17:29 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
All forms of anarchy that I have seen (especially ancapism) are wishful thinking. It's really quite sad how many teenagers think they know better than 7,000 years of statecraft. I also find it incredibly sad that royal's idea of making a case for anarchism is talking about prestate tribal societies, and then endorsing Spinko's answer like she had the slightest education in what he was talking about.

Royal is probs better educated about the matter than I am. I honestly just wrote that off the top of my head based on what I've read elsewhere.

Further, no one really likes appeals to tradition on the site since, you know, we're supposed to actually debate not just say "hurr durr we've always done it dis way, y U advocating change?".
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Lizard
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 12:30:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 12:03:40 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 3/20/2013 11:54:14 AM, Lizard wrote:
I never "got" anarcho-communism. If people wouldn't follow the communist ideology with a government (a la USSR), whose going to force them to without a government?

The point is that no one is forced. It's a voluntary, collectvist setup.

I just don't see people voluntarily not using money. And without a central planning agency, how will people know what's in demand without re-introducing some level of capitalism?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 12:34:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 12:05:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:

I'd still consider that capitalistic in a sense though. It's communism on the microscale but capitalist on the macroscale, since communes are free trading with one another.

I agree. Anything other than either economic isolationism or foreign domination will be "capitalist" on a macro scale. AnCommunism in this sense then refers to the ability for communities to organize themselves internally according to communist principles. Though I wouldn't use the term "capitalism" here since the internal organization of AnCom communities would be so antithetical to our conception of it.

Now, this I don't have a problem with. However, this type of formation exists pretty extensively in modern-day society. Israeli kibbutz's operate on this model. The amish are another famous example of this. There are plenty of communes one can find if you do a simple google search. I believe innomen supports communes, but he's hardly an-communisms.

While they exist I wouldn't call that extensive at all. It's like me saying capitalism exists extensively just because Hong Kong operates largely on free market principles. In some areas that's true but on a macro scale AnCom is in the far minority.

I personally wouldn't want to live on a commune. If not because most communes tend to be incredibly leftist in nature and probably exists of people I wouldn't want to interact with on a day to day basis. If I had to choose, I'd probably choose a religious commune although I'm not particularly religious myself. There are costs and harms associated with it. However, I can understand the desire to be part of one.

Nudism is fun though.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 12:39:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 12:30:07 PM, Lizard wrote:
At 3/20/2013 12:03:40 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 3/20/2013 11:54:14 AM, Lizard wrote:
I never "got" anarcho-communism. If people wouldn't follow the communist ideology with a government (a la USSR), whose going to force them to without a government?

The point is that no one is forced. It's a voluntary, collectvist setup.

I just don't see people voluntarily not using money.

That's not an argument, it's lack of imagination. Introduce an argument as to why people *can't* use money in society rather than just gurgitating status-quo bias.

And without a central planning agency, how will people know what's in demand without re-introducing some level of capitalism?

I explained it a bit in my initial post. The "planning" mechanism is a gradient. As such it becomes far easier to "plan" what to produce when operating on a small or decentralized scale. As such, imo, the optimal size (as far as the outreach of individual planning is concerned) would lie in individual communities. If yer asking for specifics on the actual mechanism used to plan than I'd say it could vary in theory. Delegation, syndicalist unionization, etc. are all plausible models for it.

And like Darkkermit mentioned above, it still "is" capitalism in some sense on a macro-scale considering that no community will be completely isolated economically (well come could be but I don't see that as particularly viable on a large scale). Communes organizing economically with each other would yield signals in a relevant, planning sense. Call it "capitalism" or trade or free organization or whatever you want.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 12:52:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 12:34:34 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 3/20/2013 12:05:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:

I'd still consider that capitalistic in a sense though. It's communism on the microscale but capitalist on the macroscale, since communes are free trading with one another.

I agree. Anything other than either economic isolationism or foreign domination will be "capitalist" on a macro scale. AnCommunism in this sense then refers to the ability for communities to organize themselves internally according to communist principles. Though I wouldn't use the term "capitalism" here since the internal organization of AnCom communities would be so antithetical to our conception of it.

I think there's a level of degree to it. It depends on how much you rely on exports/imports. Obviously the larger the commune, the less it needs to rely on exports/imports. Or the commune could have a complete isolation policy, which would result in a lower standard of living, which I'd consider a form of an-communism.


Now, this I don't have a problem with. However, this type of formation exists pretty extensively in modern-day society. Israeli kibbutz's operate on this model. The amish are another famous example of this. There are plenty of communes one can find if you do a simple google search. I believe innomen supports communes, but he's hardly an-communisms.

While they exist I wouldn't call that extensive at all. It's like me saying capitalism exists extensively just because Hong Kong operates largely on free market principles. In some areas that's true but on a macro scale AnCom is in the far minority.

I think it has more to do that there are very few people that would be interested in joining a commune. Hong Kong is a different example, because there are barriers to immigrating into that country. There are less barriers to entering the commune.

Although, its pretty interesting to note how some free-market places tend to be very bad examples of libertarianism. For example, Singapore is considered to be 2nd in terms of economic freedom index. However, its illegal to insult public officials and if you do state a negative statement of a public official, the burden of proof is on you to prove its true. One also receives the death penalty for drug dealing, there's forced conscription, and guns are banned. Hardly the libertarian paradise.


I personally wouldn't want to live on a commune. If not because most communes tend to be incredibly leftist in nature and probably exists of people I wouldn't want to interact with on a day to day basis. If I had to choose, I'd probably choose a religious commune although I'm not particularly religious myself. There are costs and harms associated with it. However, I can understand the desire to be part of one.

Nudism is fun though.

When was nudism ever mentioned? Nudism seems like it would briefly be fun, except once you realize that you'd have to be looking at dongs and old people dongs and old and fat women as well. Plus women clothing are really designed to put sexual emphasis on boobs and the butt, so in many ways clothing on women is more attractive then straight up nudity.

Leftist and rightist tend to diverge on values more then anything. I'd consider you to be leftist and myself to be rightest, even if we agree on many issues. That's why I say I'd prefer to be among right-wingers, because they share similar values to me. Doesn't mean I can't get along with people on the left though or hate them.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 1:06:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 10:39:55 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 3/19/2013 10:23:41 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
How does Anarcho-Communism solve the coordination problem?

Small scale federations of commune style economic setups organized freely and collectively with one another via either immediately recallable and democratically elected delegates or through some other method of coordination. The coordination problem is a gradient. A single country out of two hundred would be bad off epistemically because there's only a small amount of economic actors to make ripples via their production decisions. A single county on the other hand out of thousands within a single country (ignore for the moment the fact that countries as political institutions wouldn't exist in AnCom) would obviously be much better off epistemically speaking than a national scale socialist economy. Markets work best when there're plenty of competitive producers and other economic actors. I don't think AnCom's deny this (in the sense I'm describing "working" as producing economic efficiency). The way I see it AnCom just qualifies this as a secondary principle predicated where it is compatible with the first order principles of equality/liberty broadly defined. Small scale federations work well as a pragmatic compromise that's within the primary ethical standard which they support.

Imagine your ideal AnComm society. Now, answer yes or no to the following questions:

1) Would I be allowed to leave your AnComm society?

Yesh

2) Would I be allowed to employ people voluntarily?

Depends on how the society is organized. If it's a straight up commune than no. If it's a freely organized community in which for-use production happens to be the primary mode of economic organization than I can't see why not.

3) Would I be allowed to trade with people using commodity money or digital currency?

See (2)

4) Would I be allowed to use a price system to coordinate activities between myself and others?

(2)

5) Would I be allowed to send my children to schools where they will not be indoctrinate into Communist ways of thinking?

This question just seems silly to me.

If you answered no to any of the above, would you use coercion to prevent me from doing so?

If your society requires initiatory violence to prevent people from voluntarily interacting in mutually beneficial ways, then why should anyone want to join it?

If someone does answer in the method outlines than they most likely didn't predicate their philosophy on voluntaristic prescriptions. Now it's just gonna be "my ethics are better than yurz!!1". My own answer was tentative on the specifics of that society. If it's a commune than that represents imo a legitimate form of property (broadly defined) between the collective owners.

If I am allowed to leave the commune, does that mean there is some sort of private space I can withdraw to in the world of AnComm or if all of the property in the world is owned by AnComm the only throw myself in to the sea (or escaped to other planet).
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 1:10:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 1:06:22 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

If I am allowed to leave the commune, does that mean there is some sort of private space I can withdraw to in the world of AnComm or if all of the property in the world is owned by AnComm the only throw myself in to the sea (or escaped to other planet).

Are you srsly asking where to go in the event that you want to leave yer commune in a post-Statist, post-capitalist future utopia? How the hell would anyone know?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 1:13:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 12:28:21 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 3/20/2013 12:17:29 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
All forms of anarchy that I have seen (especially ancapism) are wishful thinking. It's really quite sad how many teenagers think they know better than 7,000 years of statecraft. I also find it incredibly sad that royal's idea of making a case for anarchism is talking about prestate tribal societies, and then endorsing Spinko's answer like she had the slightest education in what he was talking about.

Royal is probs better educated about the matter than I am. I honestly just wrote that off the top of my head based on what I've read elsewhere.

Further, no one really likes appeals to tradition on the site since, you know, we're supposed to actually debate not just say "hurr durr we've always done it dis way, y U advocating change?".

You're joking, right? royal can't even make a coherent argument for communism other than saying material has no inherent value therefore we should just help each other.

I am of the opinion that society coalesces into its natural state, with the input factors being psychology, resources, environment, biology, etc. I would be extremely skeptical of any political ideology that claimed that there was something terribly and fundamentally wrong with human society, and that following their way is the path to correcting it. Reality doesn't work that way. I wasn't making any sort of appeal to tradition.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 1:13:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 1:10:10 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 3/20/2013 1:06:22 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

If I am allowed to leave the commune, does that mean there is some sort of private space I can withdraw to in the world of AnComm or if all of the property in the world is owned by AnComm the only throw myself in to the sea (or escaped to other planet).

Are you srsly asking where to go in the event that you want to leave yer commune in a post-Statist, post-capitalist future utopia? How the hell would anyone know?

I think the question is more is whether there will be options for others who want to live in a capitalist world rather then ancomunism? So long as the capitalist do not threat harm to an-communism. Do you support the entire world converting over to this system, or would you be fine with mere separatism?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 1:15:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 1:13:02 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/20/2013 12:28:21 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 3/20/2013 12:17:29 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
All forms of anarchy that I have seen (especially ancapism) are wishful thinking. It's really quite sad how many teenagers think they know better than 7,000 years of statecraft. I also find it incredibly sad that royal's idea of making a case for anarchism is talking about prestate tribal societies, and then endorsing Spinko's answer like she had the slightest education in what he was talking about.

Royal is probs better educated about the matter than I am. I honestly just wrote that off the top of my head based on what I've read elsewhere.

Further, no one really likes appeals to tradition on the site since, you know, we're supposed to actually debate not just say "hurr durr we've always done it dis way, y U advocating change?".

You're joking, right? royal can't even make a coherent argument for communism other than saying material has no inherent value therefore we should just help each other.

I am of the opinion that society coalesces into its natural state, with the input factors being psychology, resources, environment, biology, etc. I would be extremely skeptical of any political ideology that claimed that there was something terribly and fundamentally wrong with human society, and that following their way is the path to correcting it. Reality doesn't work that way. I wasn't making any sort of appeal to tradition.

Do you deny that decades ago that our laws were radically different then what exists in present day?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 1:18:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Where's CharlesB? He's an anarcho communist.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 1:21:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 12:52:14 PM, darkkermit wrote:

I think there's a level of degree to it. It depends on how much you rely on exports/imports. Obviously the larger the commune, the less it needs to rely on exports/imports. Or the commune could have a complete isolation policy, which would result in a lower standard of living, which I'd consider a form of an-communism.

Most Ancoms don't see it that way though. Whenever I read anything contemporary on the matter there's always talk of having recallable delegation in order to organize economically with other communes. Federalism seems to be a primary guiding force in AnCom political ideology. I'm sure this isn't a necessary mode of organization though. It's quite obvious that isolated communes could exist which don't associate with others or trade but federalist communes would still qualify as AnCom.

I think it has more to do that there are very few people that would be interested in joining a commune. Hong Kong is a different example, because there are barriers to immigrating into that country. There are less barriers to entering the commune.

It seems that any non-coercive political philosophy would require an "upgrade" (for lack of a better word) in the moral zeitgeist in order to facilitate organization on a high level. That seems to be why Marx was able to support world revolution in order to bring about communism (while ignoring for the most part the necessary inner transformation as prior to outer transormation). AnCommunists aren't as blessed with an easy way out like that.

When was nudism ever mentioned? Nudism seems like it would briefly be fun, except once you realize that you'd have to be looking at dongs and old people dongs and old and fat women as well. Plus women clothing are really designed to put sexual emphasis on boobs and the butt, so in many ways clothing on women is more attractive then straight up nudity.

I guess it's relegated to communes of a "leftist character" as opposed to dem Amish or religiously-based ones. To me though I couldn't see myself minding too much.

Leftist and rightist tend to diverge on values more then anything. I'd consider you to be leftist and myself to be rightest, even if we agree on many issues. That's why I say I'd prefer to be among right-wingers, because they share similar values to me. Doesn't mean I can't get along with people on the left though or hate them.

I can understand that. I think though that commune(ism) would harbor a presumption in favor of people who hold leftist values more than anything. It's something that I think would be necessitated by the whole economic egalitarian root of the entire setup. Though I'd love to here a story about conservatives joining a commune.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 1:23:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 1:13:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/20/2013 1:10:10 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 3/20/2013 1:06:22 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

If I am allowed to leave the commune, does that mean there is some sort of private space I can withdraw to in the world of AnComm or if all of the property in the world is owned by AnComm the only throw myself in to the sea (or escaped to other planet).

Are you srsly asking where to go in the event that you want to leave yer commune in a post-Statist, post-capitalist future utopia? How the hell would anyone know?

I think the question is more is whether there will be options for others who want to live in a capitalist world rather then ancomunism? So long as the capitalist do not threat harm to an-communism. Do you support the entire world converting over to this system, or would you be fine with mere separatism?

I don't think separatism would work out well economically speaking. Trade on a macro-scale, imo, seems of pretty high importance. Honestly though I'm fine with a theoretical picture of entirely capitalism or entirely communist anarchism so long as macro-trade is present. I place my values where I do but I'm not some anarchist purist who can't handle anyone doing anything differently.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 1:25:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 1:13:02 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/20/2013 12:28:21 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 3/20/2013 12:17:29 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
All forms of anarchy that I have seen (especially ancapism) are wishful thinking. It's really quite sad how many teenagers think they know better than 7,000 years of statecraft. I also find it incredibly sad that royal's idea of making a case for anarchism is talking about prestate tribal societies, and then endorsing Spinko's answer like she had the slightest education in what he was talking about.

Royal is probs better educated about the matter than I am. I honestly just wrote that off the top of my head based on what I've read elsewhere.

Further, no one really likes appeals to tradition on the site since, you know, we're supposed to actually debate not just say "hurr durr we've always done it dis way, y U advocating change?".

You're joking, right? royal can't even make a coherent argument for communism other than saying material has no inherent value therefore we should just help each other.

Calm down.

I am of the opinion that society coalesces into its natural state, with the input factors being psychology, resources, environment, biology, etc. I would be extremely skeptical of any political ideology that claimed that there was something terribly and fundamentally wrong with human society, and that following their way is the path to correcting it. Reality doesn't work that way. I wasn't making any sort of appeal to tradition.

Except that you were. Yer saying there's some equilibrium mechanism naturally present in society making it naturally work out favorably. That puts a presumption in favor of tradition and in opposition to change i.e., normatively favoring what is and has been rather than what could or would be.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 1:26:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 1:18:07 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Where's CharlesB? He's an anarcho communist.

He's not one to really argue specifics. His forte is in moralizing more than anything.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 1:42:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 1:21:01 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 3/20/2013 12:52:14 PM, darkkermit wrote:

I think there's a level of degree to it. It depends on how much you rely on exports/imports. Obviously the larger the commune, the less it needs to rely on exports/imports. Or the commune could have a complete isolation policy, which would result in a lower standard of living, which I'd consider a form of an-communism.

Most Ancoms don't see it that way though. Whenever I read anything contemporary on the matter there's always talk of having recallable delegation in order to organize economically with other communes. Federalism seems to be a primary guiding force in AnCom political ideology. I'm sure this isn't a necessary mode of organization though. It's quite obvious that isolated communes could exist which don't associate with others or trade but federalist communes would still qualify as AnCom.

Now you've incorporated federalism, which is something different then I originally thought. I figured all the communes would be independent. I'm a little bit more intrigued now, but not sure if intrigued enough to read up on it (there are tradeoffs to reading about it).

Fringeelements, a youtube channel I subscribe to, used to advocate for something similar. He called it confederate socialism. I just find it a bit intriguing, because he is someone I would consider to be on the right but seems to advocate the same thing as you. (he no longer holds that view now, but its somewhat similar).


I think it has more to do that there are very few people that would be interested in joining a commune. Hong Kong is a different example, because there are barriers to immigrating into that country. There are less barriers to entering the commune.

It seems that any non-coercive political philosophy would require an "upgrade" (for lack of a better word) in the moral zeitgeist in order to facilitate organization on a high level. That seems to be why Marx was able to support world revolution in order to bring about communism (while ignoring for the most part the necessary inner transformation as prior to outer transormation). AnCommunists aren't as blessed with an easy way out like that.

Little bit confused by what you mean by that. If the goal is to do it through voluntarism, then a revolution seems to be counter to that. If you think the problem is that there's not enough support, because people are trapped in their own way of thought and that's why there aren't enough, I can somewhat accept that as a reason there aren't many. Although, this doesn't stop yourself from joining a commune though. Norway, there are a lot of communal societies (in the sense of living quarters though, not working quarters). There doesn't seem to be a particular legal reason why Norway has them, but the US doesn't and is more of a cultural thing.


When was nudism ever mentioned? Nudism seems like it would briefly be fun, except once you realize that you'd have to be looking at dongs and old people dongs and old and fat women as well. Plus women clothing are really designed to put sexual emphasis on boobs and the butt, so in many ways clothing on women is more attractive then straight up nudity.

I guess it's relegated to communes of a "leftist character" as opposed to dem Amish or religiously-based ones. To me though I couldn't see myself minding too much.

Leftist and rightist tend to diverge on values more then anything. I'd consider you to be leftist and myself to be rightest, even if we agree on many issues. That's why I say I'd prefer to be among right-wingers, because they share similar values to me. Doesn't mean I can't get along with people on the left though or hate them.

I can understand that. I think though that commune(ism) would harbor a presumption in favor of people who hold leftist values more than anything. It's something that I think would be necessitated by the whole economic egalitarian root of the entire setup. Though I'd love to here a story about conservatives joining a commune.

Like I said, you'd probably agree that religious communes are right-wing in nature. Especially christian communes or more "hard" religion (as opposed to spiritual but not religious types).

I think there's a somewhat conservative case for egalitarianism, but only when it comes to family or one's own inner-group. Egalitarinism at the communtiy level but not at the large-scale level. Humans are well known for their equality-bias in behavior economics experiments. I'd be interesting in knowing whether there's a difference between liberals and conservatives in the experiments, and whether the research has been done, but I think conservatives fall for the equality-bias as well.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 1:50:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Okay, I'm revising my theory. I think conservatives would still have some level of hierachy even in communal society. However, the communes would still be more egalitarian, especially on an income level, compared to let's say the gini coefficient of the US.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 1:50:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 1:13:02 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/20/2013 12:28:21 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 3/20/2013 12:17:29 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
All forms of anarchy that I have seen (especially ancapism) are wishful thinking. It's really quite sad how many teenagers think they know better than 7,000 years of statecraft. I also find it incredibly sad that royal's idea of making a case for anarchism is talking about prestate tribal societies, and then endorsing Spinko's answer like she had the slightest education in what he was talking about.

Royal is probs better educated about the matter than I am. I honestly just wrote that off the top of my head based on what I've read elsewhere.

Further, no one really likes appeals to tradition on the site since, you know, we're supposed to actually debate not just say "hurr durr we've always done it dis way, y U advocating change?".

You're joking, right? royal can't even make a coherent argument for communism other than saying material has no inherent value therefore we should just help each other.

I never once made this argument. I know your reading comprehension grades are trash, but you're just lying at this point.
I am of the opinion that society coalesces into its natural state, with the input factors being psychology, resources, environment, biology, etc. I would be extremely skeptical of any political ideology that claimed that there was something terribly and fundamentally wrong with human society, and that following their way is the path to correcting it. Reality doesn't work that way. I wasn't making any sort of appeal to tradition.