Because The State Loves You

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ANOK

 

LOL

No.

No? What kind of reply is that?

I proved you were wrong in that thread, and you gave up. There is plenty of proof of my point in that thread. Your only rebuttal was trying to claim my quotes were from bogus web sites, until I started quoting from actual books in my own collection. Then you just stopped even trying. You claim to be an Anarchist, and you don't even know who the real Anarchists were, and what they stood for. You called them stupid. If it wasn't for those original Anarchists you would never even have heard of the word.

Anarchism needs no state system, socialism needs no state system. They just need people who are organized, and realise the power of social cooperation, rather than individual competition.

Anarchism is stateless socialism, Mikhail Bakunin 1814-1876, anarcho-collectivist

Yeah this economist was stupid...

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (pronounced [ˈpruːd ɒn] in BrE, [pʁu dɔ̃] in French) (15 January, 1809 – 19 January, 1865) was a French economist and socialist philosopher who was the first individual to call himself an "anarchist" and is considered among the first anarchist thinkers. Proudhon is most famous for his assertion of "Property is theft!", in his missive What is Property? Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right of Government with the original title: Qu'est-ce que la propriété? Recherche sur le principe du droit et du gouvernement, which was his first major work, published in 1840...

...In his earliest works, Proudhon analyzed the nature and problems of the capitalist economy. While deeply critical of capitalism, he also objected to contemporary socialists who idolized association. In series of commentaries, from What is Property? (1840) through the posthumously-published Théorie de la propriété (Theory of Property, 1863-64), he declared that "property is theft", "property is impossible", "property is despotism" and "property is freedom". The apparent contradiction is resolved when it is realized that, in "property is theft", he was using the word to mean the type of property which created exploitative conditions. Specifically, he was referring to the means of production which labourers did not own themselves, and the system of wage labour...

...On the other hand, in asserting that property is essential for liberty, he was referring not only to the product of an individual's labor, but to the peasant or artisans home and tools of his trade. For Proudhon, the only legitimate source of property is labor. What one produces is his property and anything beyond that is not. He can be considered a libertarian socialist, since he advocated worker self-management and argued against capitalist ownership of the means of production.

eng.anarchopedia.org...

You don't want Anarchism, you want a free for all for capitalists to exploit others.

You read some garbage on the net and think you know everything.

great thread...


i wish for the people to wake up and take action...



please













thank you

no one cares about socialist anarchy.

It is oxymoronic and predicated on violent subservience to a collective.

People care about going to work and keeping the money they earn.

People care about keeping the wealth they have worked for over their lives.

People care about private property rights and being able to run a business without being threatened or blackmailed.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I used to own a motel in Uereka Springs Ar. It was a seasonal affair at best and the property taxes were $13,000 per year. So just to own this property cost me $13,000 per year. If I did not pay my taxes my property would be seized and sold to the highest bidder.

Private Property is a joke friend! All property actually belongs to the state. All moneys belong to the state as well, and if they wanted they could devaulate and destroy your savings like it was nothing.

We should focus on quality of life for the masses not the illusion of owning land or moneys. In America money equals freedom and this is great, but many should not suffer so that a few can live high on the hog.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
no one cares about socialist anarchy.

It is oxymoronic and predicated on violent subservience to a collective.

People care about going to work and keeping the money they earn.

People care about keeping the wealth they have worked for over their lives.

People care about private property rights and being able to run a business without being threatened or blackmailed.

edit on 10-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

Correct.

I was talking about it yesterday, Anarchist Libertarian.

An - Against
Archy - Rule

Liberty
arian - advocate of

The terms Anarchist Libertarian translates correctly to mean " And advocate of liberty whom is against rule."

Originally posted by mnemeth1
no one cares about socialist anarchy.

It is oxymoronic and predicated on violent subservience to a collective.

Dude do I have to copy and paste more proof for you?

Socialism is 'the workers ownership of the means of production', not what you claim it is.

If it was what you claimed, then why would the original Anarchists all support it?

The Anarchists were socialists who apposed the state system, and they called themselves Anarchists to differentiate themselves from the Marxists. They also called themselves libertarians, libertarian socialists etc.

The state system is the system of private property, and it's private property that socialism, and anarchism, were developed as an opposition to. Capitalism can not be Anarchistic.

Go read ANY book on Anarchism and tell me I'm wrong.

...That being the ideal of Anarchism, it's economic arrangements must consist of voluntary productive and distributive associations, gradually developing into free communism, as the best means of producing with the least waste of human energy. Anarchism however, also recognizes the right of the individual, or numbers of individuals, to arrange at all times of other forms of work, in harmony with their tastes and desires.

Such free display of human energy being possible only under complete individual and social freedom, Anarchism directs its forces against the third and greatest foe of all social equality; namely, the State, organized authority, or statutory law, - the dominion of human conduct... p56

...In fact there is hardly a modern thinker who does not agree that government, organized authority, or the State, is necessary only to maintain or protect property and monopoly. It has proven efficient in that function only... p57-58

...Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraints of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations. p62 'Anarchism and other essays' Emma Goldman

Emma Goldman, also known as “Red Emma,” was a Lithuanian-born anarchist known for her writings and speeches. She was lionized as an iconic "rebel woman" feminist by admirers, and derided as an advocate of politically motivated murder and violent revolution by her critics. Her advocacy of anarchism set her over and against those who value law and order. Her advocacy of women's rights, however, may have shocked some into realizing the moral imperative on which equality of women, and their inclusion in leadership, rests.

www.newworldencyclopedia.org...

The word ‘anarchy’ comes from the Greek anarkhia, meaning contrary to authority or without a ruler, and was used in a derogatory sense until 1840, when it was adopted by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon to describe his political and social ideology. Proudhon argued that organization without government was both possible and desirable. In the evolution of political ideas, anarchism can be seen as an ultimate projection of both liberalism and socialism, and the differing strands of anarchist thought can be related to their emphasis on one or the other of these...

Colin Ward, 'Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction' ch.1, p.1, 1995

Like I said earlier, in a "free market" people are educated and communicate effectively. They vote with their money $$$.

They choose to not support corrupt capitalists who bring destruction upon the ecosystem and the economy or trample the rights of citizens. We wouldn't stand for it.

A free market removes any need for government at all. Because we can govern ourselves effectively.

reply to post by ANOK


Socialists always subvert language to suit their needs.

Consider that today 99% of people hear the world capitalism and equate it to big business running government.

This was an intentional subversion of the word by socialist economists, politicians, and media pundits.

The original meaning of the word simply means a system of private property rights and voluntary market transactions.

Ludwig von Mises clearly demonstrated that socialism as an economic system is impossible to maintain over any system larger than a small collective. He did this by demonstrating the economic calculation problem that all socialist systems must overcome.

Socialism does not work.

Period.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
no one cares about socialist anarchy.

It is oxymoronic and predicated on violent subservience to a collective.

People care about going to work and keeping the money they earn.

People care about keeping the wealth they have worked for over their lives.

People care about private property rights and being able to run a business without being threatened or blackmailed.

edit on 10-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

Bravo

You see, this is exactly what is wrong with our country and why it won't change. People are arguing over the semantics of a word definition when in reality they should be working together to solve the problem at hand.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Like I said earlier, in a "free market" people are educated and communicate effectively. They vote with their money $$$.

They choose to not support corrupt capitalists who bring destruction upon the ecosystem and the economy or trample the rights of citizens. We wouldn't stand for it.

A free market removes any need for government at all. Because we can govern ourselves effectively.

Capitalism is not 'free-markets', it is the 'private ownership of the means of production'. How can it be free-markets when the means to produce for the market are owned by the privileged? Only when the means of production are owned by all can it really be a free-market, where we are all in an equal position to compete.

The only thing unique to capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. It can not guarantee you freedom unless you are privileged. It can be as totalitarian as any system.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Like I said earlier, in a "free market" people are educated and communicate effectively. They vote with their money $$$.

They choose to not support corrupt capitalists who bring destruction upon the ecosystem and the economy or trample the rights of citizens. We wouldn't stand for it.

A free market removes any need for government at all. Because we can govern ourselves effectively.

Capitalism is not 'free-markets', it is the 'private ownership of the means of production'. How can it be free-markets when the means to produce for the market are owned by the privileged? Only when the means of production are owned by all can it really be a free-market, where we are all in an equal position to compete.

The only thing unique to capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. It can not guarantee you freedom unless you are privileged. It can be as totalitarian as any system.

Show me a solution to Mises economic calculation problem and I'll convert to socialist anarchy immediately.

reply to post by mnemeth1


We only have the Social Services, Unions, Medicare etc because the free market system and capitalism itsself failed the people. Power lies with the masses, the oridinary American worker and when to much has been taken or we begin to see our life styles degraded it will be the end of this nonsense.


P.S. We dont keep people out of the dirt because it is the humane thing to do. We do it to mainatain a certain standard of living for us all. There will always be those who are unable or unwilling to do their part, and we must keep them from bringing us all down. Imagine how your small business would fair in Lagos or similar, because thats what we would have without our social services.

Originally posted by haarvik
You see, this is exactly what is wrong with our country and why it won't change. People are arguing over the semantics of a word definition when in reality they should be working together to solve the problem at hand.

But unless we realise what these terms really mean then how can we solve the problems, and not just create more, or make the present problems worse?

If everyone thinks stateless capitalism is the answer then we are not going to get anywhere because it's an impossibility. Politics have been so twisted since the 50's that nothing will change because you all keep supporting the present state of capitalism, without realising that capitalism IS the problem, not the solution.

Capitalists would never get rid of the state, because they are the state. Capitalists have the real power, not government. We only have government/state because of capitalism. You have all been conditioned to believe capitalism is freedom, why do you fall for it? Read some history written by real published anarchists, not garbage on the web.

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

We only have the Social Services, Unions, Medicare etc because the free market system and capitalism itsself failed the people.

edit on 10-8-2011 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)

Considering that we have increasing poverty, decreasing standards of living, and a degrading medical care system, I would say that socialism has proven itself to be the failure, not free markets.

How much money have medicare and socialist security spent?

How much money have welfare programs spent?

Why are the very things that those programs are supposed to help the worst areas of our economy?

The government is currently responsible for around 40% of our GDP spending - we are living in a socialist crap hole that is rapidly spiraling down the tubes permanently.

reply to post by ANOK


If you want to know how a true social system works, look at the Cherokee Indians. Their system was by far the best system for self governance ever known. Do some research, how they governed in times of peace and war was amazing. The fact that they lasted as a nation for so long is a testament to their society.

Originally posted by haarvik
You see, this is exactly what is wrong with our country and why it won't change. People are arguing over the semantics of a word definition when in reality they should be working together to solve the problem at hand.

We have to get our words right though.

How can we get anything done if we don't even use our language correctly??

We really have to start at the drawing board here. Education.

Let's learn some basic stuff first. Then we can become far more capable of getting something done.

Also, specifically, something done Effectively and with Positive consequences.

If we don't even know what we are talking about, it is EASY to lead us directly off the cliff.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Mismanagement is to blame.

Could have not said it better myself. The State is in for a rude awakening one day, as soon as all of us grow a set and do something about it besides ranting on ATS.

And remember God loves you too, and if you don't follow her direction, she will throw you into a lake of fire for all eternity. LOL