Liche's Politcal Profile

I am a Syndicalist/Structured Anarchist from Worldrepublic. Most people here think I'm a nazi (but I'm not) by the way whats up guys?

I believe that no one man can run a country, and a council is the best one to lead a country. I don't believe Communism will work, it is a good ideology but won't work any time soon. besides anti-nationalist and anti-individual is a turn off for me. I'm against corporatism and globalization.

i dont know why you dont understand this. but being nationalist means you arnt an anarchist. also communism and anarchism have the same end goals.

Umgh....depends on the form of anarchy. are you saying anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism have the same goals? I understand you think Anarchism has to be leftist (which it usually is) but in reality it doesn't.

no, even though we know market anarchist cant achieve it they want a classes/authoritiveless society.

I agree with you but I was just putting that out there. In my opinion, most anarcho-capitalists just think there cool cause they can say they are anarchists.

so you think anarchism isnt possible also because you dont think communism is? im just using logic here. also explain how you can be nationalist and anarchist.

I think Liche is not "nationalist" per say, although I could be wrong.

I think I have a similar concept as him which implies the preservation of countries. I don't see why the existance of countries would in any way oppose communism. In my view, what I call "antinationism" is completely unnecesary for communism.

Countries are for me simply cultural spheres that contribute to a person's cultural identity, specially in the case of some countries like Russia. Being just part of a personal identity I don't see how it would counter communism in any way.

Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. At least use a better example, like mutualism. Mutualism is actual 'market anarchism', and they're against classes. Also, Liche seems to want anarchy in one country, last I remember.
Also, communism is pro-individual.

Stos wrote:

Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. At least use a better example, like mutualism. Mutualism is actual 'market anarchism', and they're against classes. Also, Liche seems to want anarchy in one country, last I remember.
Also, communism is pro-individual.

Stos addressed the point that I was going to.

I don't think it's fair to the Individualist Anarchists to lump the Ancaps in with them. There are genuinely good market-based Anarchist ideologies - like Mutualism, as mentioned - that do not promote class antagonisms, among other things. "Anarcho"-Capitalism does not want Anarchy; it wants a privatized State.

Every form of Anarchism - whether it is Collectivist or Individualist - is a form of "Stateless Socialism"; even the market-oriented forms of Anarchism are Socialist in nature. I would say this because both are opposed to exploitation and are opposed to monopolized power and resources; where they differ is how they think they can avoid these problems - e.g. the market for the Individualists and workers' cooperatives for the Collectivists. To create an ideology like "Anarcho"-Capitalism is to completely rip the spirit of Anarchism from out of its chest. It's a travesty, a sin.

So I'd have to say that, yes, I do think that Anarchism is inherently left-wing, as most forms of Anarchism are inherently Socialist - that's why you hear guys like Chomsky and Bookchin call themselves "Libertarian Socialists". I'm not a Market Anarchist, but you shouldn't let the Ancaps ruin your opinion of them - in fact, I think most Market Anarchists from the past, like Proudhon, Tucker, and Spooner, would be totally against "Anarcho"-Capitalism. All of those guys referred to themselves as Socialists at one point or another.

---

As an aside, "Anarchism in one country" is making me think of Anarcho-Maoism or Anarcho-Stalinism, two terms that don't even exist. Maybe you could coin the terms.

I'm not sure on how Anarcho-mutualism works, but as fras as I understand it, being individualist and a market economy I don't see how it's socialist. In such a society instead of cooperation I think you get a somewhat arbitrary competition environment which could well be dominated by those producing and selling key products.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I'm not sure on how Anarcho-mutualism works, but as fras as I understand it, being individualist and a market economy I don't see how it's socialist. In such a society instead of cooperation I think you get a somewhat arbitrary competition environment which could well be dominated by those producing and selling key products.

First, I should say that the "Anarcho" qualifier is not necessary for Mutualism; you can just call it Mutualism.

I would say that Mutualism is a pretty fair synthesis between Individualism and Collectivism - you already addressed why it is Individualistic, and I think I will cite this source as to why I would say that there are elements of Collectivism in it.

Pay special attention to where the author talks about the labor theory of value; I would say this is what separates Mutualism from most other market economies. Most markets follow a supply-and-demand model - which is something that never fully felt right to me. Mutualists follow the labor theory of value, in that they believe a laborer should receive the fullest product of his labor. That, specifically, is why I would say that Mutualism is Socialistic; it entitles a man to what he himself creates, not some arbitrary boss or figurehead.

Ironically, this is also what makes it Individualistic.

What's really important about it is that Mutualists view markets differently than Capitalists. Mutualists see a market as "a profoundly humanizing and liberating concept" when "in the sense of exchanges of labor between producers" the market's primary goal is to create "a society in which all relationships and transactions are non-coercive, and based on voluntary cooperation, free exchange, or mutual aid". This was all taken from the homepage of the earlier cite I sourced.

Mutualism is a pretty healthy alternative to market economies, I think. Still, I'm a Market Abolitionist, but I can see the good in what the Mutualists stand for.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I think Liche is not "nationalist" per say, although I could be wrong.

I think I have a similar concept as him which implies the preservation of countries. I don't see why the existance of countries would in any way oppose communism. In my view, what I call "antinationism" is completely unnecesary for communism.

Countries are for me simply cultural spheres that contribute to a person's cultural identity, specially in the case of some countries like Russia. Being just part of a personal identity I don't see how it would counter communism in any way.

with this you would still have things like racism. we cannot willingly separate ourselves. there is no problem with culture at all but culture does not make country. if that were so there would be so many more countries than there are right now

Well, I don't think that merely believing in the Labour Theory of value makes it socialist. I think said society would be chaotic since it would be ruled by relative values instead of consensual ones, and of course trade. I guess I cannot see it as a healthy alternative to the actual market economies. I can agree it's somewhat fair but it's too chaotic and individualist.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Well, I don't think that merely believing in the Labour Theory of value makes it socialist. I thing said society would be chaotic since it would be ruled by relative values instead of consensual ones, and of course trade. I guess I cannot see it as a healthy alternative to the actual market economies. I can agree it's somewhat fair but it's too chaotic and individualist.

while the labor theory of value is obviously the true doctrine, id say sense it being anarcho-capitalist wouldnt the marginal productivity theory of distribution title be a bit more apt.
because sense not a person would be eager to sell their labor if they knew how disposable it actually was.
which is exactly why the marginal productivity theory of distribution would make anarcho capitalism completely cave in on itself.

ruadhan wrote:

with this you would still have things like racism. we cannot willingly separate ourselves. there is no problem with culture at all but culture does not make country. if that were so there would be so many more countries than there are right now

Well racism comes from different "races", and that's something that we're not only not going to eliminate but that shouldn't be at all eliminated. Xenophobia perhaps? Why would someone with communists convictions fall into such an ignorant practice?

For me countries should exist to delimit the historical evolution of a certain cultural group, in my view, as they are right now with some slight modifications countries would imply absolutely no problem.

A country in my view is just a piece of land delimited by imaginary lines with a name and within a certain culture or set of extremely closely related cultures have historically developed. My prime example is Russia in which hundreds of considerable-size cultural groups coexist preserving their cultures, said coexisting groups conform the actual Russian culture being the latter more like a bond between the different groups than an alternate one.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

My prime example is Russia in which hundreds of considerable-size cultural groups coexist preserving their cultures, said coexisting groups conform the actual Russian culture...

:3 I like that. The US has never done such a thing. It's simply a "melting pot" to them, a thing to have complete control over. To brainwash you into "making money" and "fucking the poor over" because you are "too good" for them.

beatnikzach wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Well, I don't think that merely believing in the Labour Theory of value makes it socialist. I thing said society would be chaotic since it would be ruled by relative values instead of consensual ones, and of course trade. I guess I cannot see it as a healthy alternative to the actual market economies. I can agree it's somewhat fair but it's too chaotic and individualist.

while the labor theory of value is obviously the true doctrine, id say sense it being anarcho-capitalist wouldnt the marginal productivity theory of distribution title be a bit more apt.
because sense not a person would be eager to sell their labor if they knew how disposable it actually was.
which is exactly why the marginal productivity theory of distribution would make anarcho capitalism completely cave in on itself.

Yes, except that marginalism is bullshit.

Stos wrote:

Yes, except that marginalism is bullshit.

"Marginalism" being defined as?

.....so

I'm I welcome here or no?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Stos wrote:

Yes, except that marginalism is bullshit.

"Marginalism" being defined as?

Marginal utility theory and such.

so ummmgh...? can I get access now?

Liche wrote:

Umgh....depends on the form of anarchy. are you saying anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism have the same goals? I understand you think Anarchism has to be leftist (which it usually is) but in reality it doesn't.

"Anarcho" capitalism is an oxy-moron. And this structured anarchism (leaderless syndicalism) is a form of council communism.

Liche wrote:

.....so

I'm I welcome here or no?

hahah Welcome to the forum,

KenCat wrote:

"Anarcho" capitalism is an oxy-moron. And this structured anarchism (leaderless syndicalism) is a form of council communism.

Not really, communism is international.

Fine, I guess I'm Council Communist now?