why isn't everyone on the left an anarchist

[ViolentPanda]

if your gonna be a socialist why not be a libertarian socialist and thus an anarchist. Why would any self respecting lefty favour authoritarian structures?

Doctrine.

 

[BLT]

Yes that's how my son's football team, our family, my running club, the schools out of hours club, my work social club...etc etc all operate rather successfully. There are many everday, efficient and enjoyable alternatives to the free market...enjoy.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

I'm assuming that the 'yes' was ironic and that you disagreed with the earlier post. Could you elaborate on what you mean here? I'm not seeing how any of these examples (apart from your family) would necessarily not operate by free exchange. For instance, how does your school's out of hours club force any of the participants to pay more than the free market rate for whatever they get out of it?

 

[Blagsta]

I'm assuming that the 'yes' was ironic and that you disagreed with the earlier post. Could you elaborate on what you mean here? I'm not seeing how any of these examples (apart from your family) would necessarily not operate by free exchange. For instance, how does your school's out of hours club force any of the participants to pay more than the free market rate for whatever they get out of it?

 

[ViolentPanda]

The people who join the SWP are a bit like the Jehova's Witnesses.

Some people just like to be told what to think and do, which they get while acting radical and alternative.

Yes dear, and meanwhile, in the real world where the SWP have nothing to do with either "the left" or "anarchism"...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Authoritrian structures save and improve lives. Socialism is about a redistribution of wealth and power. How can you redistibute power and wealth without a state,taxation and people to enforce laws?
What kind of anarchy exactly would you like to see in the UK shevek?
Do you believe any Laws are neccesary? Do you believe in mob rule?
How would you ensure people had security and incentives to work?

That's "anarchism", NOT "anarchy" that's being discussed, balders.

 

[DotCommunist]

This thread contains some vintage Jean-Luc material

 

[ViolentPanda]

Personally I think...

I rather doubt it, given the words that followed this statement.

....that Anarchism sits more easily with those from the libertarian right.

The left generally are people who want more state control, not less.

See what I mean?

 

[BLT]

"Are". Lol. Loser.

I think you'll find it should be "LOL". Loser.

(And "the basics are" is actually 'correct'.)

 

[Blagsta]

I think you'll find it should be "LOL". Loser.

(And "the basics are" is actually 'correct'.)

It's still a ridiculous statement.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The basics of how we co-operate are the free market.

No, the basics of how capital manipulates is "the free market". People cooperate for a variety of reasons beyond the instrumentalism of the market.

 

[ViolentPanda]

might be the basics of how you co-operate

some of us have friends and stuff rather than clients and colleagues

Social relations in the personal rather than political sense.

 

[BLT]

It's still a ridiculous statement.

That would be worth discussing.

I'm still mulling over your "". I'm not sure I'm following the nuances of what you are trying to express.

 

[Blagsta]

That would be worth discussing.

I'm still mulling over your "". I'm not sure I'm following the nuances of what you are trying to express.

I can expand on it if you like.

 

[BLT]

might be the basics of how you co-operate

some of us have friends and stuff rather than clients and colleagues

Some of us have friends, stuff, clients AND colleagues. What rich fullfilled lives we must lead!

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm assuming that the 'yes' was ironic and that you disagreed with the earlier post. Could you elaborate on what you mean here? I'm not seeing how any of these examples (apart from your family) would necessarily not operate by free exchange. For instance, how does your school's out of hours club force any of the participants to pay more than the free market rate for whatever they get out of it?

It should, of course, be borne in mind that "the free market" doesn't exist, and is merely a fiction convenient to capital.

 

[ericjarvis]

if your gonna be a socialist why not be a libertarian socialist and thus an anarchist. Why would any self respecting lefty favour authoritarian structures?

A libertarian socialist is no more an anarchist than an authoritarian capitalist is a fascist. It's possible to be an anarchist and a libertarian socialist, or an authoritarian capitalist and a fascist, but they aren't congruent sets.

There's a wide gap between eschewing authoritarian structures and being an anarchist. For a start there's the whole notion of democracy sitting in between. Which is what prevents me from espousing anything resembling anarchy. I can see a route from where we are to a better and fairer society by adopting mandated democracy on a far wider basis. I can't see how anarchy gets us anywhere at all starting from where we currently are. I certainly don't see anarchy as a route to libertarian socialism.

 

[BLT]

I can expand on it if you like.

At last, communication. Yes, please do expand. That is what I am asking. Without dialogue no-one is going to be persuaded.

I'm new here. I realise that most of the posts are just venting* but I sense that some posters do want to discuss the issues.




* actually, I suspect a lemma of Poe's Law is also in operation.

 

[butchersapron]

A libertarian socialist is no more an anarchist than an authoritarian capitalist is a fascist. It's possible to be an anarchist and a libertarian socialist, or an authoritarian capitalist and a fascist, but they aren't congruent sets.

There's a wide gap between eschewing authoritarian structures and being an anarchist. For a start there's the whole notion of democracy sitting in between. Which is what prevents me from espousing anything resembling anarchy. I can see a route from where we are to a better and fairer society by adopting mandated democracy on a far wider basis. I can't see how anarchy gets us anywhere at all starting from where we currently are. I certainly don't see anarchy as a route to libertarian socialism.

Bizzare post. What on earth do you think anarchism is?

 

[ViolentPanda]

This thread contains some vintage Jean-Luc material

"The facepalm is strong in this one".

 

[mrfusion]

Of course it's authoritarian inasmuch as those people that are part of it are subject to the 'authority' of decisions made democratically and those that try to destroy it from without get an 'authoritarian' response from self-defence organisation

Perhaps, but the word 'authoritarian' has a meaning. (hate to use dictionary quotes but here you go http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authoritarian). It's not a binary switch between anarchy and authoritarianism, otherwise every society is authoritarian and the word ceases to mean anything. Plenty of anarchists are capable of distinguishing between degrees of state control.

 

[butchersapron]

I sense spion firing up his Engels quote...

 

[kyser_soze]

I can expand on it if you like.

 

[Blagsta]

At last, communication. Yes, please do expand. That is what I am asking. Without dialogue no-one is going to be persuaded.

I'm new here. I realise that most of the posts are just venting* but I sense that some posters do want to discuss the issues.




* actually, I suspect a lemma of Poe's Law is also in operation.

It means I think the post is very stupid.

 

[Blagsta]

A libertarian socialist is no more an anarchist than an authoritarian capitalist is a fascist. It's possible to be an anarchist and a libertarian socialist, or an authoritarian capitalist and a fascist, but they aren't congruent sets.

There's a wide gap between eschewing authoritarian structures and being an anarchist. For a start there's the whole notion of democracy sitting in between. Which is what prevents me from espousing anything resembling anarchy. I can see a route from where we are to a better and fairer society by adopting mandated democracy on a far wider basis. I can't see how anarchy gets us anywhere at all starting from where we currently are. I certainly don't see anarchy as a route to libertarian socialism.

What?

 

[Lo Siento.]

"The facepalm is strong in this one".

wrong geekery.

 

[kyser_soze]

I think it's a splendid meme-merge

 

[danny la rouge]

At last, communication.

We don't cooperate through the free market. First, there isn't one, and never has been, and if there was its advocates wouldn't want it. And secondly, it is hardly cooperative to rob people.

Oh, and "are" was inelegant. And Stoaty is a loser whatever he says.

 

[Spion]

I sense spion firing up his Engels quote...

I don't know which one you mean. Why don't you post it?

 

[Stoat Boy]

Oh, and "are" was inelegant. And Stoaty is a loser whatever he says.

Depends how you define winning and losing.

For me I tend to believe I am winning when the losers start going all grammar Nazi on me and stuff.

But then again if you define yourself in any way, shape or form as left wing I guess you are the experts on what losing is all about.

 

[Blagsta]

Depends how you define winning and losing.

For me I tend to believe I am winning when the losers start going all grammar Nazi on me and stuff.

But then again if you define yourself in any way, shape or form as left wing I guess you are the experts on what losing is all about.