/lit/ - Literature

>Read habitually
>Superior intellect
>First class degree
>Rich
>Not becoming a conservative

>Anarchy

Anarchist theory hasn't been applicable since Pre-WWII

my favourite teacher was an anarchist.

>2011
>Being anarchist instead of being socialist, liberal, or even anarcho-communist

Come on dude, define what you are talking about, obviously liberal ideals are better for the good of the world, but honestly anarchism takes it to the point of stupidity.

There has to be a state for the world to function, and stateless societies cannot function in the technological world.

>>2068373
1/10

>>2068382
Yet he's owns a mac...

>2011
>Not being a Democratic socialist

It's the only logical position OP

..But hey if you want to be a teenage so edgy anarchist faggot,that's cool too

Lol I have never ever bothered to study anarchy. Stateless societies are retarded fantasy. Just make the state better and more accountable. or if you want to go really far split the state up into tons of different cells and implement a direct democracy system.

>>2068424
>Lol I have never ever bothered to study anarchy. Stateless societies are retarded fantasy
You see if you bothered to study it you would not think that.

>>2068424
Okay, fuck you a million times over.

I'm not an anarchist. I'm currently on the fence, I just know that I am a socialist. I think part of me has always been a socialist, but I digress:

When I started my 'study' in high school (when I just said 'fuck school' and read every book on politics, economics, etc. I could find) I read books supporting things like fascism. Things that I knew I would disagree with, but I knew I had to try in order to say that I am a free thinker.

Do I still fall fuck up and go along with the crowd? Of course. But at least I can say I tried.

Read about anarchy and stop being a dickhole.

>>2068430

Well how about instead of making a thread with no real topic, and expecting everyone in it to understand how stateless societies function ( with the exception of anarcho-primitivism I don't see how this works at ALL)

How about instead of calling people stupid you try and explain your ideas and concepts?

>>post-1275
>>not a Catholic Monarchist
Really, guys?

hey brah what you think about the catholic charismatic guys?

>2011
>not a Reactionary.
http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/archive/2011/05/17/a-brief-overview-of-nicolas-gomez-davila-s-t
hought.html

>>2068437

Oh look an hour later after being asked for help in understanding anarchism they haven't said a thing.

Guess it was to much work for them, eh eh?

OC-ish

>2011
>Still whoring yourself out for someone's ideology.

New poster here.

I've always gathered that the two most prominent but competing ideologies were anarcho-syndicalism/communism, and anarcho-capitalism, a rather recent invention of the reactionary far right capitalists.

A stateless society is said to run by giving the means of production of the resources required for society to run to democratic hands. It is unclear how this is to be done geographically, say, in a federalist system or confederate-type model. The means of production would likely need to be forcefully taken from capitalist owners, according to anarcho-syndicalist writing - but not without chances of peaceful change.

A change in social values would need to be established, so that profit is no longer primary and additional resources would be available for some in the society to create and test themselves.

Work, most of all, would need to be redefined from a miserable means to an end towards a pleasurable or fulfilling activity in and of itself, once again begging a social value progression.

This is an extremely complex topic, and I just figured I'd add what I'd read. I am not necessarily condoning or subscribing to this theory system.

>>2068437
Anarcho-primitivism is the only form of anarchy that would work because it doesn't seek to preserve what we still have. It essentially advocates going back to hunter-gatherer times.

>>2068567
What does it mean for the system to work?

Surely, millions if not billions of people would die in the attempt to revert society. Or am I mislead and jumping to conclusions?

what is anarchism

>>2068573
If you suddenly reverted back to a hunter-gatherer society instantly then a lot of people would die. But I'm saying that within a controlled period, you could technically revert back to it.

>>2068576
but that would be dumb and we should instead try to build an egalitarian and non-exploitative society without pretending it's 4000 BC.

>>2068576
I can see that, then. Do anarcho-primitivists think it useful to save and store our collected scientific findings, or particular technologies over others? Or, do they advocate the elimination of all of these things?

I'd hate to see us go through the Christian Dark Ages again, for example.

Know that I'm also an adventure therapist by profession, so I am quite sensitive to the healing powers of wilderness to the human mind and body. I am just a curious man regarding this topic.

anyone who has thought for more than 5 minutes about how things are actually produced, like imagined they are producing automobiles using plastics made from oil made in the middle east, refined in america, cut in europe, and then shipped to south america, rubber from another part of south america, and designed by people in europe...

anyone who has seriously thought about the orchestration of this, along with all the other uses of iron, plastic, etc without a price function, and remains an anarchist, is functionally retarded.

anarchism, monarchism, christianism... guys, life is not an rpg game.

>>2068587

Anarcho-Communism could only be put into play once the world becomes one big country where resources are pooled, which will probably happen in the next 1000 years. After that it would be possible to implement a communist system.

>>2068584

Anarcho-Primitivists hate technology and are basically complete morons, they are not the most popular of anarchist groups, although they are surprisingly large, as there are many many retards out there.

>>2068602

>they are not the most popular of anarchist groups

hehe, how could they be?

>HAI GUSY I WUS THINKNIG WE SHUD HAEV A ANARCHO-PRIMITIVE MEETING THIS WEEKEND.

>GRATE IDEA. WE SHOULD LET EVERYONE KNO

>YEAH, WE SHOULD PUT IT ON THE INTERNE- OH NO, MAYBE THE TELEVI- OH NOES. MAYBE THE RADI- OH FUCK IT LET'S GO PUB.

LEGALIZE GOATFUCKING RON PAUL 2012

>>2068587
Here's the thing mate: everyone realises that overthrowing capitalism means doing away with a lot of luxuries that wealthy first-worlders enjoy and living a lot like everyone else does.

Most people that aren't complete cunts consider that fair enough.

>>2068584
>Christian Dark Ages
>mfw people still think Christianity caused the Dark ages.

>>2068587
Because all firms use internal price accounting.

Fuck off. We currently have a wide variety of economic examples of multinational economic function without internal price accounting.

Also the manipulation of prices by the exclusion of externalities means that most price signals are effectively "command" economics set by the capitalist class.

Would it kill people to actually ground their statements?

* Coase (1937) The Nature of the Firm.

I'm not the smartest person when it comes to different economic or political philosophies, or their applications in the real world, so I was hoping you guys could help me out. This isn't for homework. I'm only asking because, like I said, I don't know much about this stuff and it's probably better that I learn.

The first (and only) question that comes into my mind is how would we still manage to produce things like gaming consoles and portable media players without capitalism? Like, how would we be able to undertake massively expensive projects without allowing for wealthy people to invest in capital to actually research and design new technologies and then to manufacture these products?

In a neo-lithic, communal tribe, two men are fighting over a bear pelt. One could kill the other man to lay claim to the entire pelt, but in doing so he is harmed because there is one less person to produce for the tribe. There are less than 100 people in said tribe, meaning that his loss in ration of product and social support would be greater than the worth of the bear coat. Now say that tribe had grown 1000 times larger and held 1 million individuals, the tribe still operated communally. The individual would not bear much hurt in the loss of rationing of food because individual input makes up less this time. And would not bear much cost in loss of social support, as he has hundreds and thousands of other individuals to lean upon. Meaning the incentive to kill the man, and lay claim to the bear coat is greater than the incentive to leave the man alone.


Communal co-operation was attractive to all individuals living in the tribe because the cost of coercion coming back around to hurt the aggressor outweighed the gain in material wealth. This was because of the little productive capacity of the neo-litic tribes and the smaller labour base.

>>2068623
The Utopian social organization of the neo-litic tribes were killed by surpluses, ironically enough. The minute a tribe produced enough wealth and had a large enough labour base to disperse the costs of extortion, force came in from other individuals against other individuals to acquire that material wealth. This was the point in history when the state first came into existence. The powerful man who killed his friend and laid claim to the entire bear pelt was the first ever statesman in existence. Through force, they expropriated others product to the extent where benefit of expropriation=cost of expropriation through externalities. If there were 1000 men in a society, they could expropriate the sum value of 200 men’s product and still not notice their rations being harmed. If there were 10,000 men in a society, they could expropriate the sum value of 5000 men’s product. The larger the society, the more wealth the strong men have the incentive to expropriate. Expropriation of wealth increases exponentially as the society grows.

To sum it what I’m saying up. I believe that all forms of large scale anarchist societies are doomed to fail because it conflicts with individual interests. And the only way that an anarchist society can operate is if it doesn't produce a surplus that others have the incentive to expropriate. I believe that watchman states are a necessary evil, if it entails the existence of surplus product.

>>2068622
I don't know about anarcho-primitivity, but heavy industry and freight and the mining of rare metals would still exist under socialism, it's just that the organisations that govern these things would be administrated by the people who actually work in them and funded by society collectively.

Even today, a whole bunch of technological advances are funded by the government from your taxes, by way of the military. Although gaming consoles would probably take a backseat until we can guarantee a decent standard of living for everybody.

>>2068622
That's always been my problem with Command economies and collective ownership, the niche industries such as dragon dildos and video games don't get bothered with because not enough people want them.

Like under Capitalism, say dragon dildos can be produced at 5 dollars a dick, 1000 people want them, and these 1000 people work elsewhere to acquire the money for them. And buy them. End of story. Under Anarchism, Communism or Socialism you'd have to get permission for the collective to produce these things. And more often than not, these people will disagree and focus the efforts on things the majority want, such as normal dildos.

And under any system but Capitalism, the price mechanism can't forward data of individual wants. Meaning whoever is organizing the society is really taking a shot in the dark with production. Because value scales can only be ordered by individuals, for individuals.

>>2068635
Maybe, just maybe, dragon dildos do not matter when people are living in wage slavery. You can always find something to stick up your ass.

It is possible that the revolution will interrupt your supply of videogames. The capitalists count on you remaining a pliant consumer manchild for precisely this reason.

>>2068635
>And under any system but Capitalism, the price mechanism can't forward data of individual wants. Meaning whoever is organizing the society is really taking a shot in the dark with production. Because value scales can only be ordered by individuals, for individuals.

That really isn't what happens under capitalism anyway. You get told what you want, or you get provided a dazzling array of things you didn't know you wanted. Under a collectivised system of production, a thing would probably get made if enough people expressed their desire for it.

>>2068639
I'm not that bothered about video games. I was only using it as an example.

>>2068583
That's why most people ignore them.
>>2068584
From what I've read, most advocate destroying technology and society as we know it because it restrains and destroys us as natural humans or so that's what they think.

>>2068619
external prices negro. Whether the plastic goes to autos or to blenders, how is the divison made in an anarchic state?

Answer: HERPA DERPA NO BLOODZ FOR OILS

>>2068639
>wage slavery

I've always loved this leftist talking point.

The iron law of wages states that wages will be ironed down to the bare minimum for survival over the long run. As anything above the minimum, will bring population growth, expanding supply of labor and causing the new equilibrium to form at a lower rate. And anything below the minimum, will cause mass deaths, causing the supply of labor to contract, causing the new equilibrium to be formed at a higher wage rate.

The iron law of wages makes the lump of labor fallacy, which assumes that there is a set lump of needed labor in an economy. If this was true, then Japan would have a average wage rate over 10x lower than new Zealand, as they have over 10x the population. But the mistake Marx and friends made was they forgot that an increased population also increased derived demand for labor, as individuals are ultimately consumers as well as workers. This increases demand for labor parallel to the increased supply, causing no change in the average wage level. In fact, because of specialization and increased economies of scale, things would most likely be cheaper in real terms. Causing the real purchasing power of workers to go up.

ALL of Marxian theory stems off the iron law of wages. All justification for Communism over Capitalism, all arguments for worker exploitation, everything. Comes from one large economic fallacy. This shit was refuted even before Marx's time, just like the classicist labor theory of value.

I'm definitely a philosophical anarchist, not sure about political anarchy but that's mostly a cultural accountability thing. While I don't strictly believe in Hobbesian naturalism, I think our culture engenders a weird sense of entitlement and complaint at the same time, whereas an communalistic societies of any sort, there would be a lot to be done and people who would have to do it for the love of being part of good society and all that it brings with it.

That said, Bakunin was an enjoyable read

>>2068642
>You get told what you want, or you get provided a dazzling array of things you didn't know you wanted

>HURR DURR CHOICES ARE EVIL, ADVERTISING IS BRAINWASHING

There are plenty, and I mean fucking plenty. Of examples of things that have been spammed to hell and back through advertising, yet remain unsuccessful. And there are countless examples of things that have had little advertising catching on.

It is much cheaper from the Capitalists point of view to expand on existing demand that spend millions and millions creating artificial demand.

>>2068661
>This increases demand for labor parallel to the increased supply, causing no change in the average wage level. In fact, because of specialization and increased economies of scale, things would most likely be cheaper in real terms. Causing the real purchasing power of workers to go up.
Then why hasn't that happened?

Japan and New Zealand, incidentally, are not completely self-contained economies. If you live in either of those nations, chances are you're not part of the proletariat capitalism exploits.

>>2068671
>Real wages of goods producing workers
>Goods producing

Our economies operate in the tertiary sector now nigga. Services is where it is at. You honestly don't expect the real wages of those industries to go up when other economies are comparatively more efficient at them.

>>2068661
>iron law of wages

Marx repeatedly refutes this. If you'd like to attack Marx, have the academic honesty to read him, as some of the better Austrians attempted.

>>2068661
>refuting Marx in a thread about Anarchism
>using the word 'leftist'
The right/ left binary in political thought is about as useful something that is not very useful in a situation that calls for something to be useful in order to overcome a problem.

>>2068670
>It is much cheaper from the Capitalists point of view to expand on existing demand that spend millions and millions creating artificial demand.

For sure, but it's more often in the capitalist's interest to cater to the desires of people with disposable income instead of the real needs of people without. Not an ideal way of organising society imo.

>>2068670
> There are plenty, and I mean fucking plenty. Of examples of things that have been spammed to hell and back through advertising, yet remain unsuccessful. And there are countless examples of things that have had little advertising catching on.

1. You're a fucking idiot who can't form a sentence.
2. Are you really trying to argue that advertisement doesn't work? Why do you think corporations spend billions of dollars yearly on something that doesn't work?

Fact is about 3 billion people or so need to die for anything to go right with our planet.

>>2068709
Marxian theory was derived from the iron law, where workers would become worse and worse off as time went on.

>The pith of Marx's economic teachings is his "law" of wages. This alleged law that is at the bottom of his entire criticism of the capitalistic system is, of course, not of Marxian make. It was devised by earlier authors, had long since been known under the label of the "iron law of wages" and had already been thoroughly refuted before Marx employed it as the foundation of his doctrine. Marx chose to ignore all that had been said to show the viciousness of the reasoning implied in this alleged law. He made some sarcastic remarks about the German translation of the English term "iron law," as suggested by his main rival for the leadership of the German socialist party, Ferdinand Lassalle (1825-1864). But he built his entire economic reasoning, all his prognostication of the future course of economic affairs and his whole political program upon the illusory basis of this fallacious theorem.

http://mises.org/resources.aspx?Id=bd4ad406-2a8a-47c3-b80e-09bfb978f8a7

>>2068709
>Why do you think corporations spend billions of dollars yearly on something that doesn't work?

Busy work. People profit from it. It's generally accepted to work. Everybody gotta do something, so they can feel like they're 'contributing to society'.

>>2068736
not that guy but advertising works, even if you hate the product via the sleeper effect it will still work.
it has the numbers and research going for it.

>>2068712
This planet has the resources to comfortably support its current population, the issue is entirely a matter of distribution.

Not to say overpopulation doesn't concern me, but it's not the cause of our social ills

>>2068709
>>2068743
>>2068736
Advertising ain't brainwashing, it is what it is. Advertising, telling people your product exists. Attracting the largest customer base.

To push shit requires to much money, so people don't bother. They only advertise decent products that they figure people want to maximize returns.

>>2068727
Mises is quite simply lying here. He does this fairly often.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch02.htm

>>2068712
If the 3 billion people are made up of Niggers and beaners I'd agree

>>2068709

>Are you really trying to argue that advertisement doesn't work? Why do you think corporations spend billions of dollars yearly on something that doesn't work?

Advertising does work, but not in the way you think, or in the way it's portrayed. It's not about making the customer aware of a new product, or increasing choice: it's actually the opposite.

Advertising doesn't work directly on the consumer - studies show that most of the time, it's irrelevant beyond seeing a commercial and thinking "hmm, I fancy a beer, I'll get one from the fridge". The beer is already in the fridge - you're not going to say "hurr, advert is for heineken, I have Groslch in the fridge. Throw away bad beer, go shop, miss football to buy good beer, durr".

tl;dr advertising doesn't work on you.

But it does work on the shop-keeper, and even more so the buyer for a large supermarket.

Imagine your local beer seller, in the warehouse where he buys beers. He could make a selection, choosing artesinal beers made locally, mixed with some imports, plus some cheaper polish stuff for the students to puke on his doorstep later. But what he sees in the warehouse is a huge, massive display with Heineken on it, and on the display is the stuff a shopkeeper likes to read: "$250 million dollar advertising campaign. Supported by full merchandising. Targetted advertising during World Cup Soccer. Official Sponsor of Your Mum's Holiday Home in Goa". So he thinks "wow, people will buy this in droves, I will buy a fucking shedload". And that's how advertising works, and why you only get shitty beer and mars bars in the local shop.

so under anarchy, do we use oil to fuel cars, make plastic or to make fertilizer, and in what proportions?


Also, by what mechanism do effect this distribution of resources?

>tl;dr advertising doesn't work on you.
I KNEW IT

>>2068768


actually, this will be a hoot. Just walk me through how the oil industry, from pipelines to products, will function in the anarchic state.

>>2068768
The oil will all be gone by the time we get anarchy up and running, don't worry.

>>2068778
Do you lack the capacity to go from the particular to the general? How unfortunate.


The steel industry then.

>>2068774
>anarchic state

>2011
>not bombing corporations

>>2068774
>implying anarchists want oil industry, or any industry for that matter to flourish.

Anarchism isn't some 'economic system' (at all!) with a fucking blueprint that someone can look at and say "that won't work", it's fucking finding the fullest of human potential - with everything that implies: RISK, FAILURE, PERSERVERANCE, EXPERIMENTATION, and the thing that usually pulls people in: REJECTION OF SUBMISSION.
We DO NOT know how it could turn out cause we have never BEEN GIVEN THE CHANCE to find out.
But, we desire freedom more than any promises of 'security', that THIS world SORELY FAILS to offer!

>>2068712
Pretty much this >>2068736
If, at this moment, one percent of the world population owns forty percent of the world's wealth, I'd say it's achievable to have a comfortable living situation for every citizen, once wealth is distributed more evenly.