Political Roll Call - Page 5

On January 30 2010 00:33 Aim Here wrote:


Well green should certainly have been an option, but anarchism and libertarianism are polar opposites on the (crucial) subject of private property, although they tend to agree on a number of social issues. (Libertarians do tend to hijack the language of the left-anarchists sometimes, which confuses many- 'libertarian' was originally coined as a euphemism for anarchist - because calling yourself an anarchist would get you put in jail at the time - and some very anti-statist libertarians call themselves 'anarcho-capitalist', to the annoyance of left-anarchists).

As there are, to my knowledge, no relevant anarchist parties anywhere in the world, I would just have bunched all those guys up with libertarians despite their internal devisions and philosophies.

On January 30 2010 01:44 Aim Here wrote:


No way. Anarchism and libertarianism are decidedly not an 'internal division' of each other (unless you're using the old fashioned/European term 'libertarian' or you believe that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, which is rejected by almost all left-anarchists). One has it's origins in Europe in the 19th century, is generally considered left wing, and has a vehement opposition to the private ownership of 'property' (where the word property means, at minimum, 'the means of production').

The other is a twentieth century phenomenon, largely originated in the US, is generally considered right-wing (though some libertarians tend to object to this), and considers the private ownership of property to be almost sacrosanct.

They do have some beliefs in common, and both parties do witter on about freedom much, but essentially Anarchists are all socialists (but reject the state) and Libertarians are all capitalists (and sometimes reject the state). They don't share the same philosophers (apart from perhaps Robert Anton Wilson...), they don't hang around in the same social circles and saying their differences are an 'internal division' would be like saying that the philosophies of Mao Tse Tung and Ronald Reagan are essentially similar.

Just because there are no anarchist parties doesn't mean you can disregard the views of pretty much all anarchist thinkers and lump them together with a largely unrelated philosophy.

On January 30 2010 02:09 Piretes wrote:
Other. I'm a left-leaning liberal, in the European sense of the word.

Personal freedom should be superior to the state, but the state should not endorse the so-called 'economic freedom' that neoliberals advocate. Economic freedom is probably one of the most misused terms in recent political debate. Currently it is used to support big-buisness corporate capitalism, which strangles alot of smaller-scale enterprise. 'Economic freedom' should not result in corporate monopolism.

On January 29 2010 19:48 Hasudk wrote:

Did I say that? Please correct me if I'm wrong in assuming that anarchists like communists believe that the only way to take power away from the current states is by violent means. I used the word riot because I didn't think anarchists liked the word revolution, but if you like that word better then by all means lets call it a revolution. =)
Communists would of course try to reduce the amount of violence by organizing people and building a mass-movement. But to believe that any state would sit idly by while you take control is utter fantasy and I don't think that any anarchist theoreticians would claim that that is a possibility.
Violence is an unavoidable part of any kind of social transformation, call it riot or revolution, the difference is semantics.

On January 29 2010 20:36 Hasudk wrote:


Okay then, I think this would go under the utopian plans for social transformation.

What do you think the state would do if you stopped paying taxes? The police would arrest you. And I know that you will say that they can't arrest everyone, so if everyone just stopped paying taxes then everything would be dandy.
So lets imagine that every citizen in a metropolis stops paying taxes at the same time - the government calls it civil unrest and sends in the military, now you either fight or get arrested/shot. The same thing happens if its on a national scale, except the army deployed might not be domestic but foreign.

You would literally have to make everyone in the entire world stop paying taxes at the exact same time to avoid that, and then you would probably STILL have to deal with the military. And lets face it, you are not gonna get everyone in the entire world to stop paying taxes.
Unless you use some kind of in which case the whole thing is irrelevant.

I do however agree with you that the goal is the most important thing, and having good goals is praiseworthy thing. But I can't agree to the claim that the means do not matter in a discussion like this – of course the means matter, ask Rosa Luxemburg if its fun to fail at social transformation, I think the answer would be "no".

On January 30 2010 00:33 Aim Here wrote:


Well green should certainly have been an option, but anarchism and libertarianism are polar opposites on the (crucial) subject of private property, although they tend to agree on a number of social issues. (Libertarians do tend to hijack the language of the left-anarchists sometimes, which confuses many- 'libertarian' was originally coined as a euphemism for anarchist - because calling yourself an anarchist would get you put in jail at the time - and some very anti-statist libertarians call themselves 'anarcho-capitalist', to the annoyance of left-anarchists).



And who are the anarchists actually supposed to vote FOR, exactly? No matter who you vote for, the government always wins!

(Actually I DO turn up at the polls each polling day, and make a point of spoiling my ballot paper, which is no less meaningful than putting my cross in the box against the one I like the most, IMO)

On January 30 2010 01:44 Aim Here wrote:


No way. Anarchism and libertarianism are decidedly not an 'internal division' of each other (unless you're using the old fashioned/European term 'libertarian' or you believe that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, which is rejected by almost all left-anarchists). One has it's origins in Europe in the 19th century, is generally considered left wing, and has a vehement opposition to the private ownership of 'property' (where the word property means, at minimum, 'the means of production').

The other is a twentieth century phenomenon, largely originated in the US, is generally considered right-wing (though some libertarians tend to object to this), and considers the private ownership of property to be almost sacrosanct.

They do have some beliefs in common, and both parties do witter on about freedom much, but essentially Anarchists are all socialists (but reject the state) and Libertarians are all capitalists (and sometimes reject the state). They don't share the same philosophers (apart from perhaps Robert Anton Wilson...), they don't hang around in the same social circles and saying their differences are an 'internal division' would be like saying that the philosophies of Mao Tse Tung and Ronald Reagan are essentially similar.

Just because there are no anarchist parties doesn't mean you can disregard the views of pretty much all anarchist thinkers and lump them together with a largely unrelated philosophy.

Libertarians range from Classical-Liberal Minarchists, to Anarcho-Capitalists. Anarcho-Capitalists are the likes of these fellows and are as much Anarchists (Stateless) as any other of the utopian egalitarian anarchists (which we find utopian because of the nature of man).

On January 30 2010 05:07 Aim Here wrote:


Just because anarcho-capitalists are against the state does not mean that they are anarchists.

Anarchism is a term for a political theory, or a set of political theories, which are opposed to ALL forms of hierarchical control, whether through the state,a feudal landowner, a slave-owner or a boss. "Anarcho-capitalists" only object to some of them, and don't object to the likes of wage labour, rentier capitalism or even police forces (as long as they're *privatised* police forces - why anyone would think that market forces would make hired thugs less terrifying than they are now bamboozles me), all of which are anathema to almost every left-anarchist on the planet. It's quite easy to find statements by anarchists pointing out that "anarcho-capitalism" would lead to some extreme forms of tyranny and exploitation if ever if was put into practice. On any matter remotely touching economics, anarchists and anarcho-capitalists are at the opposite ends of the spectrum.

Given the huge disparity between the ideal societies proposed by anarchists and anarcho-capitalists, surely it would be a good plan, for linguistic reasons if nothing else, to keep the words we use for these completely different political philosophies separate?

On January 30 2010 05:16 CharlieMurphy wrote:
even though im probably more of a liberal on my views, I'm totally apathetic. I don't vote and I don't think anything I can do (or anyone for that matter) can change things in any way to my favor.