Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
What will never happen? :T Zapatista Army of National Liberation
is an independent anarchist community that's thousands strong and it's been around for decades.
"I guess I could consider myself an X?"
I guess you could stop trying to apply round beliefs into square pegs?
I say with very affectionately; maybe instead of identifying with this or that group, this or that label, you could just be yourself with your own unique set of preferences and beliefs, without having to approximate it with pre-set packages and bundles that never quite fit. Just an honest suggestion.
edited 27th May '13 1:37:52 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.That's the thing. Sure, individuals should have rights, but don't collectives? (Maybe not all collectives, some are more legitimate than others.)
edited 27th May '13 3:42:07 AM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Yes indeed, you can have anarchists who believe a person can have supreme authority over an area and everyone in it despite them not actually doing anything there, just so they can leech off the work of others. Totally not inconsistent or at odds with the historical tradition. XP Yep, your boss and landlord obviously have no power over you whatsoever. There's no corporate hierarchy no sir, just equal comrades!
Serious though, a quote:
All this is supposed to be a very bad thing.
And so it is, although it is nothing but a description of the modern workplace. The liberals and conservatives and libertarians who lament totalitarianism are phonies and hypocrites. There is more freedom in any moderately de-Stalinized dictatorship than there is in the ordinary American workplace. You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do in a prison or a monastery. In fact, as Foucault and others have shown, prisons and factories came in at about the same time, and their operators consciously borrowed from each other's control techniques.
A worker is a part-time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors; he amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called "insubordination," just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment compensation.
...To demonize state authoritarianism while ignoring identical albeit contract-consecrated subservient arrangements in the large-scale corporations which control the world economy is fetishism at its worst.
edited 27th May '13 4:07:22 AM by CassidyTheDevil
Over the 20th century, First World countries saw a general trend towards liberalism/social democracy in a variety of areas, the workplace (and prisons, actually) among them. The eight hour workday, paid vacation, workplace subsidized health insurance, retirement plans, unemployment insurance, overtime pay, collective bargaining, and a variety of other polices and practices were an outgrowth of this.
Unfortunately, we've seen a trend over the past 30 years of retrenching by corporate interests, slowly eroding those freedoms that we took for granted in the mid-20th century.
I don't think that anarchies can function on a large scale, any more than fully libertarian societies or fully objectivist societies or whatever. They're suitable for small scale experiments, but when you grow large enough, hierarchies and regulations are inevitable. Keeping them unintrusive is important, as long as they serve their purpose, which is to curb excesses and abuses.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Except you can't. The only major group of people who use the term anarchist who support private property are "anarcho"-capitalists, and all other anarchists basically agree they aren't actually anarchists. Private property is incompatible with anarchism. To be an anarchist and support private property would be like to be a monarchist, but support term limits on the monarchs and elections for the monarchs. The first major anarchist work was entitled "What is property?" which featured the quote "Property is theft" when talking about private property. Anarchists were involved in the First International where all agreed that private property needed to go. In the Free Territories, anarchists did away with private property. In the anarchist areas of Spain during the Spanish Civil War, there was no private property. In the kibbutzes in Israel, there is no private property. The Industrial Workers of the World reject private property. You can say that anarchism and private property are compatible all you want, but that doesn't make it true. Private property is authority. Private property creates hierarchy. Anarchists, by definition, oppose all hierarchy and authority.
Poll: 54% percent oppose ObamaCare; 43% percent support it.
Hagel marks Memorial Day with video ‘message of thanks’
Report: Donald Trump researching 2016 bid
Oh God Why?
edited 27th May '13 12:14:27 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016![]()
Donald Trump for Repub nominee, 2016! Maybe that can finally kill the GOP!
I'm not sure if dogma is the right word, but there are beliefs that one needs to have to be an anarchist. Not because one is going to be forced to have those beliefs, but, if those requirements didn't exist, the term would have no meaning. Like, if a fascist goes around saying that he or she is an anarchist, the fascist still isn't an anarchist, no matter how much he or she says he is. This isn't a matter of dogma but of defining terms. For example, every anarchist I know agrees that "anarcho"-capitalists aren't anarchists. They are free to have their beliefs, though we do disagree, but calling themselves anarchists is absurd and a perversion of the term. The term anarchist has meaning and, if you don't fit within that meaning, you aren't an anarchist. Within that meaning is a rejection of private property and capitalism. People are free to believe what they want and call themselves what they want, but saying you're an anarchist doesn't make it so. You're an anarchist if you fit within the meaning of anarchist.
I mean, look. If someone supports a strong centralized state, is that person an anarchist? Of course not. Even you would probably agree on that. Is that because of dogma? No, it's because of what anarchist means. Private property isn't really all that different in that regard.
edited 27th May '13 12:18:55 PM by deathpigeon
1. There is a thread for this. Several threads, in fact.
2. The following quote
3. Cassidy, the quote you give is very true for many workplaces and definitely something to keep in mind, but again, it isn't applicable. Does everyone here understand the difference between top-down authority and bottom-up, emergent leadership?
4. DP, I would echo Greenmantle's question about anarchist dogma. This statement is not totally accurate.
- Richard Feynman
edited 27th May '13 12:23:31 PM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Fox’s Andrea Tantaros Tells Listeners: If You See Obama Supporters, ‘Punch Them In The Face’
At least we're keeping things civil.
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
X4 so anarcho-communism like the place I lived aren't a thing? Because we had private property, the thing that made us anarcho-communist was the total equality and the lack of a top down hierarchy.
edited 27th May '13 12:24:27 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranLet us say there is someone who believes in the Abrahamic God. This person believes that the messiah will come and save us all. This person also believes that we must pray to the Abrahamic God, that the Abrahamic God is the creator and the judge. Is this person necessarily a christian? No. If this person doesn't believe in Jesus or that Jesus came to save us and is the son of the Abrahamic God, this person is probably a jew, even though this person shared a lot of characteristics with christians. You I'd probably call a libertarian, but you aren't an anarchist.
...Where is the place you lived?

Yes. Private property is almost always defined (at least by socialists) in contrast to personal property. Personal property is stuff you personally use or places you personally live. Private property are places or stuff you don't use or live in, but still benefit from, be it through renting or through wage labor or even through slave labor. Private property is, essentially, a social relation between owner and user, a social relation that is authoritarian in nature. Personal property is non-social. It's the computer I'm on. It's the books I read. It's the apartment I live in.