Varoius Critique's of Anarchism

"mises.org seems to be a free market capitalist site"

so? why is this problematic? I'm sure many of the contributors are not a world away from those on enrager; perhaps some students from middle to upper class backgrounds etc.

"Get off your ass and move."

I did so. But I did so under state capitalism.

"So we cant do anything new? We can only replicate behaviour from the past? "

No, it just means empirically, its unlikely to work. People don;t like oppressing each other do they?

"No because you can do all those things for free and without any money whatsoever, which people do - often. 2

what a kick around a field? fair enough, but a bit shaky as a proposition to feed 6 billion, no?

"Cos his nan got him one last xmas. "

but why does he 'need' one at all? this is not a genuine species need, but a historically conditioned one. You propose some kind of socio-economic system that can dispense with money but still provide watches. However, as the saying goes 'time is money'.

"Maybe he wants to be a farmer? "

maybe he does. fine he is. maybe he wants to be a pop star? roled and dividions of labour are how the economy currently work but many propse something else. this necessarilly assumes revoluton, and hence possible death. does this explain the unpopularity of anarchism perhaps?

"What if social roles didnt exist? "

then I imagine we couldn't have production at all, or it would be much less productive.

you want to do away with labour!! certainly a lot more radical than marx, bakunin or the spanish anarchists envisioned, who all said it should be compulsory for all.

"Maybe cos ur not the only person on the planet? My brother needs a watch... "

and there are hundreds of billions of transactions being carried out every day. any and every attempt to replace this with direct exchange has been extremely problematic (russian and spanish revolutions etc)

"something didnt work once, so obviously it will never work again. "

the same problems will be encountered; that it is in fact extremely useful to give differeing economic values to different people and their differing skills, for example, as opposed to the alternatives.

"uhh yes i think the whole point is that they are worlds away, otherwise we would be working togther no? Its problematic because its a load of shite. "

but perhaps not in class background, which is specifically what i pointed out. how can you be against words

===================

"In actual fact, many of the Spanish agrarian communes completely abolished money and trade and began setting up Anarchist societies. "

what are you basing this claim upon?

"but the combined efforts of the Fascists and the Communists defeated them. "

is it not valid to argue that mass participation by anarchists in the defence of a liberal government might have played a part? further, what is the solution, in light of the fact that there ARE fascists and communists, and that, lets face it, they are just people? it seems anarchism is just like the totalitarian logic of the other 2 seeking to totally colonise the world.

"Not having money did not fail them, not having allies they could trust failed them."

did you bother reading the links then?

"Come on now fella, you gotta say these ain't too bad. Gimme community control before a free market any day. "

neither has meaning for me. why is it better for me to exchange goods than use money. still nothing has been offered as to why the latter is less morally permissible. it doesnt concern me as long as i get what i want. im sure it doesnt concern the proverbial farmer.

"So thats utterly meaningless then, and so was your original point. "

Im suggesting such basic things would be even harder under anarchism, as eye-witness reports, from the links, if you bothgered to read them, suggest.

"Going back to your favoured idea of money - imagine if everyone had it, it would be worthless!"

everyone does have it, in the UK for examle.

"We dont need to feed 6 billion, the 6 billion can feed themselves. People organising for themselves is what its about. "

thats what they do, through a division of labour and exchange economy, dont they?

"This is now just utter shite. "

why? why is farming legitimnate work, and singing not? again, you failed to note the quip, showing you didnt bother reading any links.

"What?!?! I think you can assume death full stop mate, we dont need a revolution to bring about death. "

but its more likely in a civil war.

how DO you explain the unpoplarity of anarchism then?

"free market capitalism and anarchism come from the same class background now? "

Im suggesting some commentators on the website may have a similar socio-econmic background to some on here.

"When they are meaning less bollocks"

all words are meaningless. they only take on meaning in reltions to other words. That is the nature of words.

"Most anarchists as well as most fascists come from working class backgrounds"

well, probably the fascists, Im not sure about the anarchists, at least in the contemporary arena.

"Especially the regurgitated fascist-propaganda bullshit from the Guardian piece."

What you mean the opinions of an art historian? What make syou think they are a fascist?

Please; what is the difference between 'propaganda' and 'truth'? All truth is produced, it isn't 'out there' like the planet mars.

"non-existant anarchist massacres of nuns."

why do you think this is non-existent?

"how the fuck do u propose we destroy capitalism, the state and all the other state and ideological apparatus, with a marcuse book??? "

I dont. its called praxis. Im not against words. Im against actual manifestations of authority in my own life, and evading those, as I have much more chance of succeeding than in a successful revolution succeeding, as even a cursory look at recent history will tell you.

I never mentioned the nun raping story.

workers, bosses, nuns, priests, anarchists; all socially constructed roles. if its going to come down to blood shed, why kill each other over words? what would you expect some one who has grown up with the expectation they would take up the relisgious life, or whose family were quite wealthy? anarchists would designate them the enemy anyway, even if they thought anarchism was a good idea and not unlike catholicism, and so theyd be forced into opposing anarchists by the anarchists very own actions.

I didnt 'parrot' anything, I posted some links with the hope of some kind of critical thinking, with no commentary by myself, other than on prostitution. unfortunately, all i got was personally directed abuse by people who didnt bother to read the links, as if simply by posting some links im somehow endorsing everything said in them. If I expected that level of response I would have went straight to the spectatot magazine.

Pintiao, (I don't know why people start putting your name after a few parries, as if talking to a small child who won't behave, perhaps?)

"It is going to come down to bloodshed. This is the logical conclusion of anarchist-communist politics. "

It doesn't have to be so. But by accepting this, you are making it thus. Thus, (let's get VERY far-fetched for a minute), imagine an anarcho-communist revolution in england (!) with yourself as 'influential militant' (!!!) at a large workplace. The employers have given in to some demands but you merely hear an assertion by other 'anarcho-commnists' that they have killed some workers. Your belief in 'bloodshed' compells you to extoll other rank and file workers (who may not be so anarchist) to committ bloodshed. Thus the whole edifice of western civilization (leaders, factions, bloodhsed) is mirrored in 'anarcho-communism'.

"We want to abolish power,"

Killing people is one of the most brutal manifestations of power imagineable, is it not. You are professing to me that you are quite prepared to kill real living humans in the name of some abstraction ('anarcho-communism') which you believe possible, but which you have never actually experienced, save through highly partisan accounts, and even these no doubt acknowledged that the experiment failed (whether crushed ot not it doesnt matter).

"want this to happen, "

I'm not an ancrho communist or at least not one who believes in murdering those who dont wish to live under this socio-economic arrangement. I have no problem with people voluntarily taking up anarcho-communist living arrangements. The totalitarian logic of your marxist pseudo0anarchism however, suggests you'd never be happy until the whole world's economy was based on 'need', something that failked everywheare it has been tried, under both authritarian and anti-authoritarian communism (spain, russia, utopian communities etc).

"Which sectors of society would react negatively? "

To a violent anarcho-communist struggle? in the uk, probably quite large sections of workers; skilled and semi-skilled, white collar, etc.

"A slave revolt results in two things."

'wage slavery' is nothing like actual slavery, and even marx never thought so, not condmening individual capitalists.

Ulitmately, this depends on class. I fundamentally disagree with the analysis of people like Class War etc. The richest people in my society are footballers, pop stats, writers, and admittedly, some large employers. They do not oppress me.

"once tasting freedom"

freedom is not an absolute. freedom necessarilly involves conflict. My 'freedom' to listen to SLayer at full volum at 3am interferes with the 'freedom' of my neighbour not to listen to it. my 'freedom' to take someone's money interferes with their 'freedom' to keep it.

"Your logic seems to point to the maintenance of current power relations"

In the face of the utter failur eof every brand of communism to work anywhere, then yes, I'd chose that the UK remained a state-capitalist society. There are many actually existing freedoms I have in this society (not having to work if I dont want to due to dole, not having to submit to committees to move about or drink alcohol, or go to prostitutes) that I presumably wouldnt have under anarchist collectives, at least as they were actually practised, rather than ideal.

Im sacrificing the ideal world to the material world. Looks like Im the Marxist?

"Anarchists don't like violence."

why did a leading one justify the murder of 4-5K then? does this figure mean anything to you? have you ever met a firmly religious person, and conversed with them in a non-hierarchical way, trying to understand their thought processes, instead of being a patronising anarchist in possession of 'truth'? thousands of people, killed, because we disagree with each other over words ('justice', 'exploitation', 'profit' etc )

"Power doesn't allow it's dissolution without resistance. "

If you threaten to murder people, you necessarilly create power, because they will be scared, intimidated, and will use vilence and threats of it in return, to try and suppress your threats.

"Those of us serious about our politics understand this, "

so in essence, anyone who isnt a violent anarcho-communist is 'wrong' and will be subject to 'revolutionary justice' perhaps? all sounds VERY authoritarian to me.

"that the likelihood of social revolution is probably 100 years away."

there will NEVER be an anarcho-communist (or amything else I would imagine) revolutin in england. I guarantee that.

I'm not an ideological secular evangalist of any sort ('libertarian', 'christian', 'anarcho-communist'). As I said, I try to utilise praxis; my self understanding and critique of those around me, in order to increase my own enjoyment of life.

anarcho-capitalism, like anarcho-communism is another spook that requires we submit to a morality outside ourselves.

I'm influenced by Stirner, Nietzche, the Frankfurt School, Freud, Derrida, and moany others. But I also accept all these people are just people, and its not up to me to be a 'disciple'.

Suffice it to say, If in an actual civil war situation, rather than an hypothetical one, I would do everything within my power to preserve my own life as, as far as I'm concerend, all these things (ideologies. or whatever else) only exist for me because they enter my subjective consciousness.

I wouldn't really be able to have much critique (or self enjoyment, for that matter) If i died fighting other humans because they make a grunting noise that sounds like ashist.

"I think that mutual aid and solidarity are more important than each-for-himself selfishness"

I don't see that they are necessarilly different. Mutual means two parties both gain something in an exchange. This 'gain' however is subjectively experienced by each individual.

Perhaps personified by Adam Smith's quote that the baker does not serve the butcher out of self interest, but due to his desire for meat, and vice versa. The only problem is having an exchange mechanism. You believe you can do without one, whereas every anarchist experiment I'm familiar with has failed to do this.