Anarcho-Socialism is Facism in disguise

[Conductor42]

Anarcho-Socialists are the most deceptive group of Facists in existence. They pretend to abhore govt, but they support it as long as it will do what they want.

They aren't anarchists, they very much believe in forcing their opinions on others by means of violence. Every Anarcho-Socialist "revolution" has been marked by violence and bloodshed on levels comparable to the violence in the worst parts of Iraq.

There is no such thing as Anarcho-Socialism. It is facism, pure and simple facism as defined by Mussolini.

[Sevivon1913]

Anarcho-Socialists are the most deceptive group of Facists in existence. They pretend to abhore govt, but they support it as long as it will do what they want.

They aren't anarchists, they very much believe in forcing their opinions on others by means of violence. Every Anarcho-Socialist "revolution" has been marked by violence and bloodshed on levels comparable to the violence in the worst parts of Iraq.

There is no such thing as Anarcho-Socialism. It is facism, pure and simple facism as defined by Mussolini.
Do you mean anarcho-syndicalism? I think that in this world where we have the backward concept of nation-state divisions, the anarcho-socialists see internationalism through a world government as the best solution. However, that said; anarchists only reject illegitimate and unjustified authority. In what way would you consider a democratically elected world government, which would have as little power as possible, which espouses egalitarianism, to be fascist?

Am I supposed to think anarcho-socialism is bad because of your historically inaccurate association with Mussolini? Have you read up on the achievements of Mussolini's Italy? As far as I'm concerned, he had an Enlightenment-style benevolent tyrrany who - although he turned Italy from a backward country into a modern European power - represented elitist corporate interests. He himself was a socialist, but he was controlled by capitalists. Ultimately, Mussolini represents the opposite of ANARCHO-socialism; right-wing fascist capitalist nationalism.

If you can' tell the difference between "national socialism" and "socialism", then I fear that you've been duped by NSDAP propaganda.

[Conductor42]

However, that said; anarchists only reject illegitimate and unjustified authority. Anarchism is not Anarchism if it expouses govts.

That is like saying you're an Abolitionist who supports Slavery.

True Anarchists, like Russel Kanning of New Hampshire, do not accept govt.


In what way would you consider a democratically elected world government, which would have as little power as possible, which espouses egalitarianism, to be fascist?

I could care less about a democratically elected world govt.

Why should you, where you live, be forced to accept restrictions in your life that the rest of the world wants for themselves?
Why should a rancher in Utah have to accept the rules of a person in Saudi Arabia?

Decentralizing govt, not expanding it, is the way to go if you want to have a voice that matters.

[Sevivon1913]

Anarchism is not Anarchism if it expouses govts.

That is like saying you're an Abolitionist who supports Slavery.

True Anarchists, like Russel Kanning of New Hampshire, do not accept govt..

I meant they advocated a world government as the solution to national governments, and as the best avenue for the realization of anarchism. You couldn't simply declare world anarchism out of the blue.


I could care less about a democratically elected world govt.

Why should you, where you live, be forced to accept restrictions in your life that the rest of the world wants for themselves?
Why should a rancher in Utah have to accept the rules of a person in Saudi Arabia?

Decentralizing govt, not expanding it, is the way to go if you want to have a voice that matters.

I don't believe in world government.

If the US had been a decentralized country in the late 19th Century, slavery would still be practised in the South. Besides, in a world where corporations transcend national borders and are spread all over the world, decentralized governments would be powerless against them; even national governments can't rein in the corporations. The corporations would divide and conquer each weak decentralized area, while they themselves operate (and have a hierarchical structure akin to a dictatorship) on an international level. Which is the real issue..........because socialism rejects private ownership of the means of production, and states that it should belong to the workforce. I'd first impose socialism on a country and make corporations and illegal institution (as early 19th century capitalists had adovcated!*) before even dreaming of decentralizing it.

*Corporations are essentially communist organisations of power (and totally illegitimate).

[Conductor42]

You couldn't simply declare world anarchism out of the blue.

Who says you need to? I'm content to let people live under govt if they want.


If the US had been a decentralized country in the late 19th Century, slavery would still be practised in the South.

Not neccessarily. The Civil War was NOT fought over slavery, and the commander of the South was an abolitionist.


Besides, in a world where corporations transcend national borders and are spread all over the world, decentralized governments would be powerless against them; even national governments can't rein in the corporations. The corporations would divide and conquer each weak decentralized area, while they themselves operate (and have a hierarchical structure akin to a dictatorship) on an international level.

You need a basic lesson about Capitalism, competition, and S&D.

[aardvarkcore]

You'll find that anarcho-socialism when used in the contexts you are talking about is people with hidden agendas underneath what they are talking about (ie. facism).

Karl Marx would be turning in his grave is he saw what people made of his ideas. Karl Marx knew what he was talking about and I think primitive-communism and anarcho-primitism is good. Go freegan!

[Conductor42]

You'll find that anarcho-socialism when used in the contexts you are talking about is people with hidden agendas underneath what they are talking about (ie. facism).

Karl Marx would be turning in his grave is he saw what people made of his ideas. Karl Marx knew what he was talking about and I think primitive-communism and anarcho-primitism is good. Go freegan!
So are you saying you believe in an entirely voluntary, non-coercive system?
I'm interested in hearing about that if so, instead of Wyzaard's idea of bloody revoluttion and slavery to the state.

[aardvarkcore]

I think when it is voluntary it is great, I believe in subversion of our political and economic system. Freeganism is something I fully support (but it is something that isn't sustainable on a larger level). I don't believe in conversion (by means of violence anyway) but you can totally subvert the system and create your own political and economic structure while still in the constraints of society. I'm not saying alienation of yourself from society but alienation of yourself from its system.

When anarcho-socialism is voluntary it makes total sense (to me anyway). Here in New Zealand anarchic principals are becoming a huge part of the non-commercial music scene, things like dumpster diving are slowly becoming a part of the scene. (Dumpster diving is going through rubbish bins of companies to get resources ie. food, clothes etc. ... you'd be suprised what you can get and the amount of it!)

"Freeganism" is something worth reading up about, same with anarcho-primitsm and primitive-communism. When you have small voluntary communities it is a lot easier to avoid corruption because 1) they are a lot smaller than a communist nation (obviously) and 2) people know why they are following the cause and wouldn't want to corrupt that.


Voluntary anarcho-socialism=the Church in the book of Acts.

[Tladatsi]

Dude, what are talking about? You are right, there is no such thing as "anarcho-socialism"! So why are writing a whole post attacking something that does not exist?



Anarcho-Socialists are the most deceptive group of Facists in existence. They pretend to abhore govt, but they support it as long as it will do what they want.

They aren't anarchists, they very much believe in forcing their opinions on others by means of violence. Every Anarcho-Socialist "revolution" has been marked by violence and bloodshed on levels comparable to the violence in the worst parts of Iraq.

There is no such thing as Anarcho-Socialism. It is facism, pure and simple facism as defined by Mussolini.

[Conductor42]

I believe in subversion of our political and economic system.

What do you mean by that? I.e. what sort of actions do you propose? What do you do to improve this world?


Dude, what are talking about? You are right, there is no such thing as "anarcho-socialism"! So why are writing a whole post attacking something that does not exist?

No, there are a few truly "Anarcho" Socialists - I wouldn't believe it, but they are FSP'ers who believe that way. However, it seems that most are like politicians - 99% of them give the 1% a bad name.

[aardvarkcore]

What do you mean by that? I.e. what sort of actions do you propose? What do you do to improve this world?

It's not what I'm doing; it's what I'm not doing. I'm not changing the over-consumption of products causing harm, I'm just not contributing to it. If I can't change the system, I'll find a way around it.

Things like dumpster diving is being a good steward of the land, all this food is going into landfills that is perfectly fine while people are dying of starvation ... makes no sense to me.

Last night I went dumpster diving with some people from my church we got, 30 shweppes soda with a twists (raspbery and lime flavors), a kilo of italian grand roast coffee beans, countless amounts of dented cans of everything (including canned pineapple (stoked!), jelly pots, exit mould and just heaps of other stuff (we could of got way more stuff) ... this was all from 1 dumpster.

All this stuff we will use and eat rather than it going into a landfill. (kinda off the point of anarcho-socialism, but yeah).

[Tladatsi]

No, there are a few truly "Anarcho" Socialists - I wouldn't believe it, but they are FSP'ers who believe that way. However, it seems that most are like politicians - 99% of them give the 1% a bad name.

I have never heard of such a group but that hardly means anything. However there cannot be more than a dozen of them and they do not seem to be doing anything anywhere so who cares? They are probably a bunch blow-hard do-nothings who sit about pontificating on the ideological purity. Yawn.

[Mentieth]

Anarcho-Socialists are the most deceptive group of Facists in existence. They pretend to abhore govt, but they support it as long as it will do what they want.

To this I say, they do abhor the government, but as Lennin claimed communism is a necessary step to socialism, so is government a step to no government. It is a fade-out policy, not a drop and run. "If I ruled the world, I wouldn't rule the world." - Matthew Julius (Anarchist supporter)


They aren't anarchists, they very much believe in forcing their opinions on others by means of violence. Every Anarcho-Socialist "revolution" has been marked by violence and bloodshed on levels comparable to the violence in the worst parts of Iraq.

Past anarchist revolutions have been bloody, I shall admit the truth. However, that is because they did not seek to support a gradual fade out of the government. Essential what they did was try and abolish the government - drop and run. It seems as though they cannot win. If they hate the government and as such seek to destroy it straight away violence and crime ensue; if they support the government that seek to get rid of itself in the long run (which by your statement that we are assuming the government is doing what they want - which if we pay any attention to the "anarcho" element of 'anarcho-socialism must be the case) they are accused of not hating the government and therefore aren't anarchist, so what's left? Fascism. That is why the previous quote: "If I ruled the world, I wouldn't rule the world," is vital. The condition for anarchism is that there is a ruling government in place that is willing to abolition itself.


There is no such thing as Anarcho-Socialism. It is facism, pure and simple facism as defined by Mussolini.

Now, come on. The early church had no established 'government' and it shared its produce amongst its members - money to widows and the poor - does that not have semblance to an anarcho-socialism of sorts?[/QUOTE]

[joel]

When anarcho-socialism is voluntary it makes total sense (to me anyway).

What do you do about the economic calculation problem?



When you have small voluntary communities it is a lot easier to avoid corruption because 1) they are a lot smaller than a communist nation (obviously) and 2) people know why they are following the cause and wouldn't want to corrupt that.

So, then, does each individual community own the means of production that it possesses and uses? Can the various communities then exchange (buy and sell) their means of production with other communities (and perhaps individuals who voluntarily are not part of one of these voluntary communities)?

[Mentieth]

Why do anarchists drink herbal tea?



Because proper-tea is theft.

[stig69]

First they came for the anarcho-socialists... I was silent... there were no anarcho-socialists...
Then they came for the christo-buddhists... I was silent... there were no christo-buddhists...
Then they came for the humpty-dumpty-knick-knack-give-a-dog-a-boneists...

[.Ne0]

Anarchism in the context of government refers to absence of government.
Anarchism in the context of governing refers to self governing.

Anarcho-Socialist strongly support Free Will, and prefer a self governing community, i.e Direct Democracy both in the government and workplace.

Other than that, Individual preferences differ.
For example, personally, I am against Competition and Intellectual Property Rights.

For more Information, see:
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism

[joel]

Anarcho-Socialist strongly support Free Will, and prefer a self governing community, i.e Direct Democracy both in the government and workplace.

Democracy and anarchy are logically incompatible. Direct democracy places the majority vote as the authority/ruler over the individuals. Purely voluntary interaction excludes the possibility of democracy. (Because, unless the vote is unanimous (in which case democracy is superfluous), it entails coercing the majority individuals' will upon the minority individuals. And if you aren't going to subject the minority to the will of the majority, then what was the point of the voting? If merely a poll, then it's not democracy.)

And how is socialism compatible with anarchy? How do you get socialism out of non-coercive individualism? Socialism is the collective control of the factors of production. If we have only voluntary individual control of the factors then that is private property (and thus is capitalism). To implement a collective control (which logically must be unitary in the given context) means subjecting dissenting individuals' wills to this "collective will" (e.g., majority vote), which is not anarchy. (E.g., the collective has to coercively take control from me that which I create/earn.)

[.Ne0]

Democracy and anarchy are logically incompatible. Direct democracy places the majority vote as the authority/ruler over the individuals. Purely voluntary interaction excludes the possibility of democracy. (Because, unless the vote is unanimous (in which case democracy is superfluous), it entails coercing the majority individuals' will upon the minority individuals. And if you aren't going to subject the minority to the will of the majority, then what was the point of the voting? If merely a poll, then it's not democracy.)
In Direct Democracy, the public is the law making entity, therefore it is Anarchy.
Voting places the majority vote as the authority/ruler over the minority - that is why we vote, to make our voice heard !

And how is socialism compatible with anarchy? How do you get socialism out of non-coercive individualism? Socialism is the collective control of the factors of production. If we have only voluntary individual control of the factors then that is private property (and thus is capitalism). To implement a collective control (which logically must be unitary in the given context) means subjecting dissenting individuals' wills to this "collective will" (e.g., majority vote), which is not anarchy. (E.g., the collective has to coercively take control from me that which I create/earn.)
I think you are mixing Socialism with Communism.
Socialism is a type of economy while Anarchism is a type of governing.
Yes, Socialism is the collective control of the factors of production.
Political Spectrum (http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh41/Eternal-Eternal/PoliticalSpectrum.jpg)

[joel]

In Direct Democracy, the public is the law making entity, therefore it is Anarchy.
Voting places the majority vote as the authority/ruler over the minority - that is why we vote, to make our voice heard !

You didn't address my argument at all.
Yes it places the majority vote as the authority/ruler over the minority. That is why it is not anarchy.
It is a two-level heirarchy, with the majority-vote as ruler, and the individuals as the subjects, coerced to the will of the ruler.
(Tyranny is still tyranny whether the ruler consists of a single person or 51% or 99% of the individuals. Democracy and tyranny are compatible.)



I think you are mixing Socialism with Communism.

No, I'm not, as you even point out:



Yes, Socialism is the collective control of the factors of production.

Then that premise of my argument is true. The argument is sound.

To sum up:
Democracy and anarchy are incompatible.
Socialism and anarchy are incompatible.
If you think otherwise, then show how my arguments are flawed.

[.Ne0]

You didn't address my argument at all.
Yes it places the majority vote as the authority/ruler over the minority. That is why it is not anarchy.
It is a two-level heirarchy, with the majority-vote as ruler, and the individuals as the subjects, coerced to the will of the ruler.
(Tyranny is still tyranny whether the ruler consists of a single person or 51% or 99% of the individuals. Democracy and tyranny are compatible.)

"majority-vote as ruler, and the individuals as the subjects, coerced to the will of the ruler." - here is your mistake, you see it in terms of majority bieng rulers and minority bieng subjects.
It is not an election, it is voting to pass the laws, and yes everyone should cooperate and abide by the majority vote, because that is what it means to live in human society.


Democracy and anarchy are incompatible.
Representative Democracy is incompatible with Anarchy. Direct Democracy is compatible with Anarchy

Socialism and anarchy are incompatible.
If you think otherwise, then show how my arguments are flawed.
click on the image link in my previous post !

[Jedidiah]

Is English your second language, .Neo?

[joel]

"majority-vote as ruler, and the individuals as the subjects, coerced to the will of the ruler." - here is your mistake, you see it in terms of majority bieng rulers and minority bieng subjects.

That is exactly what it is. How is it any different?



it is voting to pass the laws

Yes, exactly. And enforcing laws entails coercion, subjecting others' wills to your own. The majority in establishing and enforcing laws is deciding how they will subject the minority's will to their own.



, and yes everyone should cooperate and abide by the majority vote, because that is what it means to live in human society.

I disagree. For example, suppose the majority votes that all Jews (let's say they are a minority) should be killed (or enslaved, or whatever). The minority that disagrees should not cooperate nor abide by that majority vote. That is not at all what it means to live in human society. In that case it is the majority that is being anti-social.



Direct Democracy is compatible with Anarchy

This is a restatement of your assertion without addressing my argument.



click on the image link in my previous post !
I did. What is your point.