Anarchadelphia 2019
Conference videos are coming online... https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=anarchadelphia&sp=CAI%253D
Republicans who like to party and say stupid shit like 'anarchism and capitalism can coexist.'. Rr On September 20, 2019 9:45:59 PM PDT, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
Conference videos are coming online...
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=anarchadelphia&sp=CAI%253D
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On Saturday, September 21, 2019, 01:31:49 PM PDT, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
Republicans who like to party and say stupid shit like 'anarchism and capitalism can coexist.'.
It would be false to say, "anarchism and CRONY capitalism can coexist". The "crony" in "crony capitalism" comes from the existence of government. So, if there is no government, there is no "crony".. (As in, capitalism as it is now known in America, and other places, which has the crony aspect.) But it is not false to say 'anarchism and capitalism can coexist.' And 'capitalism' is merely 'crowd-sourced capital', which is merely one aspect of what would be a free-market. Jim Bell
On Saturday, September 21, 2019, 03:30:56 PM PDT, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: On Saturday, September 21, 2019, 01:31:49 PM PDT, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
Republicans who like to party and say stupid shit like 'anarchism and capitalism can coexist.'.
It would be false to say, "anarchism and CRONY capitalism can coexist". The "crony" in "crony capitalism" comes from the existence of government. So, if there is no government, there is no "crony".. (As in, capitalism as it is now known in America, and other places, which has the crony aspect.) But it is not false to say 'anarchism and capitalism can coexist.' And 'capitalism' is merely 'crowd-sourced capital', which is merely one aspect of what would be a free-market. Jim Bell
I should also point out that my use of the term "anarchism" above is based on what I believe to be the correct definition of 'anarchism', the believe that there should not exist any government, and certainly not that whose existence and practice violences the Non-Initiation of Force Principle (NIOFP, which many call the NAP, "non-agression principle". One big problem is that many, and quite possibly most people who call themselves "anarchists" (or are called that by others) are really just big-government-loving Leftists, those who are forced to find another rhetorical 'home': Their favorite political system, Socialism, or even Communism has so seriously failed in the last 30+ years (and in fact over the last 100+ years), that they feel the need to portray themselves as "anarchists", a system which HASN'T yet obviously failed. See: https://attackthesystem.com/2017/12/19/free-association-is-not-fascism-how-m... which I have quoted before. [begin long quote] Another claim is that anarchist communities and associations must be “inclusive.” Of course, anyone who has spen time around the general anarchist milieu knows how exclusionary anarchists actually are. I generally like to cite this comment made by a former an-com some years ago as an illustration: I used to be an anarcho-communist. Actually, I started out as someone who was vaguely sympathetic to mainstream libertarianism but could never fully embrace it due to the perceived economic implications. I eventually drifted to social anarchism thanks to someone who’s name I won’t mention, because it’s too embarrassing. After hanging around them for a while I realized that, for all their pretenses, most of them were really just state-socialists who wanted to abolish the State by making it smaller and calling it something else. After about a year of hanging around Libcom and the livejournal anarchist community, I encountered people who, under the aegis of “community self-management”, supported - smoking and alcohol bans - bans on currently illicit drugs - bans on caffeinated substances (all drugs are really just preventing you from dealing with problems, you see) - censorship of pornography (on feminist grounds) - sexual practices like BDSM (same grounds, no matter the gender of the participants or who was in what role) - bans on prostitution (same grounds) - bans on religion or public religious expression (this included atheist religions like Buddhism, which were the same thing because they were “irrational”) - bans on advertisement (which in this context meant any free speech with a commercial twist) - bans on eating meat - gun control (except for members of the official community-approved militia, which is in no way the same thing as a local police department) - mandatory work assignments (ie slavery) - the blatant statement, in these exact words, that “Anarchism is not individualist” on no less than twelve separate occasions over the course of seven months. Not everybody in those communities actively agreed with them, but nobody got up and seriously disputed it. - that if you don’t like any of these rules, you’re not free to just quit the community, draw a line around your house and choose not to obey while forfeiting any benefits. No, as long as you’re in what they say are the the boundaries (borders?) of “the community”, you’re bound to follow the rules, otherwise you have to move someplace else (“love it or leave it”, as the conservative mantra goes). You’d think for a moment that this conflicts with An-comm property conceptions because they’re effectively exercising power over land that they do not occupy, implying that they own it and making “the community” into One Big Landlord a la Hoppean feudalism So I decided that we really didn’t want the same things, and that what they wanted was really some kind of Maoist concentration commune where we all sit in a circle and publicly harass the people who aren’t conforming hard enough. No thanks, comrade. Of course, it is also true that these “anti-fascist” folks really don’t care about “exclusion,” anyway. As I mentioned, many of them are Communists, state-socialists, and social democrats, and even the anarchist contingent among them seems to be little more than dupes and useful idiots. What they are really concerned about is “exclusion” on politically incorrect grounds, while insisting on retaining the right to “exclude” whomever or whatever they want for themselves. Therefore, an Anarcho-Marxist Politically Correct Commune=Good, Conservative Religious White Folks Enclave=Horrible, and People of Color Racial Separatist Community=Understandable Because History Except That Ikcy Homophobia Part. [end of long quote]
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 11:06:13PM +0000, jim bell wrote:
On Saturday, September 21, 2019, 03:30:56 PM PDT, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 21, 2019, 01:31:49 PM PDT, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
Republicans who like to party and say stupid shit like 'anarchism and capitalism can coexist.'.
It would be false to say, "anarchism and CRONY capitalism can coexist". The "crony" in "crony capitalism" comes from the existence of government. So, if there is no government, there is no "crony".. (As in, capitalism as it is now known in America, and other places, which has the crony aspect.) But it is not false to say 'anarchism and capitalism can coexist.' And 'capitalism' is merely 'crowd-sourced capital', which is merely one aspect of what would be a free-market. Jim Bell
I should also point out that my use of the term "anarchism" above is based on what I believe to be the correct definition of 'anarchism', the believe that there should not exist any government, and certainly not that whose existence and practice violences the Non-Initiation of Force Principle (NIOFP, which many call the NAP, "non-agression principle". One big problem is that many, and quite possibly most people who call themselves "anarchists" (or are called that by others) are really just big-government-loving Leftists, those who are forced to find another rhetorical 'home': Their favorite political system, Socialism, or even Communism has so seriously failed in the last 30+ years (and in fact over the last 100+ years), that they feel the need to portray themselves as "anarchists", a system which HASN'T yet obviously failed. See: https://attackthesystem.com/2017/12/19/free-association-is-not-fascism-how-m... which I have quoted before. [begin long quote]
Another claim is that anarchist communities and associations must be “inclusive.” Of course, anyone who has spen time around the general anarchist milieu knows how exclusionary anarchists actually are. I generally like to cite this comment made by a former an-com some years ago as an illustration:
I used to be an anarcho-communist. Actually, I started out as someone who was vaguely sympathetic to mainstream libertarianism but could never fully embrace it due to the perceived economic implications. I eventually drifted to social anarchism thanks to someone who’s name I won’t mention, because it’s too embarrassing.
After hanging around them for a while I realized that, for all their pretenses, most of them were really just state-socialists who wanted to abolish the State by making it smaller and calling it something else. After about a year of hanging around Libcom and the livejournal anarchist community, I encountered people who, under the aegis of “community self-management”, supported
- smoking and alcohol bans - bans on currently illicit drugs - bans on caffeinated substances (all drugs are really just preventing you from dealing with problems, you see) - censorship of pornography (on feminist grounds) - sexual practices like BDSM (same grounds, no matter the gender of the participants or who was in what role) - bans on prostitution (same grounds) - bans on religion or public religious expression (this included atheist religions like Buddhism, which were the same thing because they were “irrational”) - bans on advertisement (which in this context meant any free speech with a commercial twist) - bans on eating meat - gun control (except for members of the official community-approved militia, which is in no way the same thing as a local police department) - mandatory work assignments (ie slavery) - the blatant statement, in these exact words, that “Anarchism is not individualist” on no less than twelve separate occasions over the course of seven months. Not everybody in those communities actively agreed with them, but nobody got up and seriously disputed it. - that if you don’t like any of these rules, you’re not free to just quit the community, draw a line around your house and choose not to obey while forfeiting any benefits. No, as long as you’re in what they say are the the boundaries (borders?) of “the community”, you’re bound to follow the rules, otherwise you have to move someplace else (“love it or leave it”, as the conservative mantra goes). You’d think for a moment that this conflicts with An-comm property conceptions because they’re effectively exercising power over land that they do not occupy, implying that they own it and making “the community” into One Big Landlord a la Hoppean feudalism
So I decided that we really didn’t want the same things, and that what they wanted was really some kind of Maoist concentration commune where we all sit in a circle and publicly harass the people who aren’t conforming hard enough. No thanks, comrade.
Of course, it is also true that these “anti-fascist” folks really don’t care about “exclusion,” anyway. As I mentioned, many of them are Communists, state-socialists, and social democrats, and even the anarchist contingent among them seems to be little more than dupes and useful idiots. What they are really concerned about is “exclusion” on politically incorrect grounds, while insisting on retaining the right to “exclude” whomever or whatever they want for themselves. Therefore, an Anarcho-Marxist Politically Correct Commune=Good, Conservative Religious White Folks Enclave=Horrible, and People of Color Racial Separatist Community=Understandable Because History Except That Ikcy Homophobia Part. [end of long quote]
Ha! Yes, nailed it :D If 15 years has taught me one thing it's that when many folks hear the word "community", what they most often actually hear is "free shit for me, others will do the work, and while I'm grabbing at it, I get to tell everyone what they're going to do".
But it is not false to say 'anarchism and capitalism can coexist.' And 'capitalism' is merely 'crowd-sourced capital', which is merely one aspect of what would be a free-market. Jim Bell
On 2019-09-23 11:59, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
I should also point out that my use of the term "anarchism" above is based on what I believe to be the correct definition of 'anarchism', the believe that there should not exist any government, and certainly not that whose existence and practice violences the Non-Initiation of Force Principle (NIOFP, which many call the NAP, "non-aggression principle".
There is an obvious problem with the non-aggression principle. What do you do about large organized groups of people who aggress, and loudly proclaim the other guy is aggressing, and have crew of noisy public intellectuals (priests) explaining why the organized and dangerous group is in the right and doing good? The other guy is supposedly price gouging, or emitting CO2, or hording, or engaging in usury (people who talk about usury are seldom aware of or interested in the way Christianity defined usury. They just free money and to never have to pay it back.) The union says that the employer is aggressing by locking unionized workers out and hiring non union labor, and bring up some cannon to make their point. The Christian priest says that the priests of the Icelandic religion are aggressing, because they follow, and preach their followers to follow, the pagan rules on violence and law enforcement, which if successfully followed, are apt to result in Christians getting the short end of the stick, which was not a problem when everyone in Iceland followed the rules of the Icelandic gods, except for a few evildoers which evildoers tended to wind up dead. The Christian priests argued for a Kingly monopoly of force, and they had a point, in that Icelandic priests were notoriously prone to ruling in favor of the guy with largest mob of armed supporters at the courtroom. Hence the reactionary doctrine that you always wind up with a state religion. In our case, instead of being required to believe in things unseen, we are required to disbelieve in things seen, such as racial and sexual differences, and bad female behavior in the workplace.
On 9/21/19, \0xDynamite <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
But it is not false to say 'anarchism and capitalism can coexist.'
How will you protect that which capitalism builds? And will it all be barter?
Those seem meta questions that tend to solve themselves in open markets and education. Perhaps all people really need to do is show people ways to handle their harder conceptual physical space problems during and after transition to non-government models... "build the roads", water, electric, food, health, "police", etc... in say the case of roads how to without using privacy rights invading vehicle or personal pay-trackers. There are a few solution models for each of those big mental blocker things. You should look them up and post them here for people to read and forward on. Unfortunately at most conferences, Libertarian Voluntaryist Anarchist whatever their name, they're too busy talking same old trashtalk and truths about the Governments they claim to disavow in order to pump and sell themselves, instead of giving at least equal time to showing people how to route around, infiltrate, weaken, topple them... to think, work, live, share, cooperate together... to educate new generations, etc. Waking up is necessary prereq, but without everyone having clear workable novel alternative paths in hand, they will still be trapped, unable to do anything. As in another thread... most people need shown how to make pencils before they can make them on their own... so go tell them.
On 2019-09-22 15:39, grarpamp wrote:
On 9/21/19, \0xDynamite <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
But it is not false to say 'anarchism and capitalism can coexist.'
How will you protect that which capitalism builds? And will it all be barter?
Those seem meta questions that tend to solve themselves in open markets and education.
We have plenty of existing societies that approximate anarchism. In large parts of South East Asia the writ of the state runs mighty thin when you leave the cities. All existing such societies are neither capitalist nor socialist. It is dangerous for an outsider to wander about alone. Rather they practice self sufficiency and gift economy. Large scale economic activity is impractical. As a result, they are mighty poor, which poverty is alleviated by remittances from young men and women sent away to work in more orderly places. Capitalistic anarchic societies have existed, most famously Saga Period Iceland. But though the state in Saga Period Iceland was barely existent, and did not possess a monopoly of legitimate force, Saga Period Iceland had a state religion - which state religion endorsed the right of individuals to themselves punish wrongs done to themselves and others, hence the weakness of the state. It seems that you cannot get people to agree on what is lawful or unlawful without some sort of rather coercive imposition. Some group of people is always going to concoct a real or imaginary grievance and demand compensation for real or imaginary sins. Saga period Iceland could have a market economy because they had substantial agreement on what constituted taking, and what to do about people who took stuff, substantial agreement on what was lawful or unlawful, this agreement being mediated by the Godar. "Godar" is sometimes interpreted as chieftain, and they had a lot of power, but it means not chieftain, but God botherer, someone who prays, preaches to the congregation, and conducts religious rites. What tends to happen in a state of anarchy is that people form tribalistic groups on the basis of race, religion and ethnicity, and then impose law that favors their group against outsiders. Which leads to the development of the state, and when that somehow does not happen all that much, or the ensuing government is only strong in major population centers, life is insecure, and property considerably more insecure outside those centers.
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 16:59:03 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
Capitalistic anarchic societies have existed, most famously Saga Period Iceland
this guy donald is a crazy piece of shit. Iceland was a society of thieves - pirates - and slave owners. Aka known as the fucking vikings. Only a crazy piece of shit would call that 'anarchic' - But, but WHO WOULD BUILD THE PENCILS! ps : as always, the crazy shitbag donald doesn't have the slightest idea regarding the source of this cosmic piece of fascist nonsense, but I know where it comes from. It comes from another piece of right wing and jew shit called david friedman. Here's the linky link http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html you have to look at the 'price table' at the bottom. There you can learn that in viking iceland a cow was more 'valuable' and expesive than a slave. That's 'anarcho libertarianism' in the minds of supreme scum like friedman, donald and 99% of 'libertarians'.
Unfortunately
Another thing few AVL seem to be doing outside their circle jerk is actively soliciting people on the street. You get a constant barrage of solicitors for "voting", political parties, religions, internet, multilevel marketing, charity, vacuums, marijuana, drugs, prostitutes, whatever... at your door and on the street. But you've never seen anyone repping for An-Vol-Lib. If they actually started selling their pencils, they'd have a much better chance of changing things. Get out and sell the pencils.
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 01:39:06AM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
On 9/21/19, \0xDynamite <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
But it is not false to say 'anarchism and capitalism can coexist.'
How will you protect that which capitalism builds? And will it all be barter?
Those seem meta questions that tend to solve themselves in open markets and education.
Perhaps all people really need to do is show people ways to handle their harder conceptual physical space problems during and after transition to non-government models... "build the roads", water, electric, food, health, "police", etc... in say the case of roads how to without using privacy rights invading vehicle or personal pay-trackers. There are a few solution models for each of those big mental blocker things. You should look them up and post them here for people to read and forward on.
The big mental blocker for how to travel without using privacy rights invading vehicle and personal pay trackers - is don't attach the identifying number plates or toll payment RFID devices. And then you come up against the force of the existing state. So how does one peacefully protest without giving up a life in jail and under endless police harassment? That's the freedom creating question...
Unfortunately at most conferences, Libertarian Voluntaryist Anarchist whatever their name, they're too busy talking same old trashtalk and truths about the Governments they claim to disavow in order to pump and sell themselves, instead of giving at least equal time to showing people how to route around, infiltrate, weaken, topple them... to think, work, live, share, cooperate together... to educate new generations, etc.
Waking up is necessary prereq, but without everyone having clear workable novel alternative paths in hand, they will still be trapped, unable to do anything.
As in another thread... most people need shown how to make pencils before they can make them on their own... so go tell them.
participants (7)
-
\0xDynamite -
grarpamp -
jamesd＠echeque.com -
jim bell -
Punk -
Razer -
Zenaan Harkness