Quote from: ktttn on May 30, 2013, 12:17:47 PM

I hereby decree a meta conversation.
For the record,
I agree wholeheartedly with Zarathustra's definitions.
I agree with Myrkul's partial rejection of the state, and maintain that capitalism and statism are symbiotic.
I agree with blablahblah's partial rejection of capitalism, but disagree about the implications of anarchism.
People don't always have the same meanings for words. Arguing about definitions is semantic bullshit.
EDIT:

Quote from: myrkul on May 30, 2013, 10:25:23 AM

Quote from: Zarathustra on May 30, 2013, 09:18:16 AM

Quote from: myrkul on May 30, 2013, 08:58:27 AM

Quote from: Zarathustra on May 30, 2013, 08:53:47 AM

"Societies are communities". Here you can see, what kind of bullshit we 'learn' in the dictionaries of the authority. I agree with @blablahblah.

Well, if you want to continue to define words however you feel like, I see no point in continuing a conversation with you. Have a nice day.

Yes, my language is not the perverted patriarchal language of the authority. It is an anarchal language. Have also a nice day!

Glock elbow watermelon Chinese macaroni chicken?

That was a bad post and you should feel bad.

Judging by a private message I just got from zarathrusta, he has a different perspective on democracy, since he's in one of the few places where it actually kind of works.

That being said, I don't really care for the WORD capitalism, as it has been defined to include the state for so damn long. I've been an anarchist and a free market advocate for many years, so that is the term I'll use: Free Market.

Socialism is the PUBLIC ownership of the means of production, and is necessarily statist.
Fascism is a form of socialism in which the means of production is mixed, i.e. certain privileged individuals hold title to the means of production, but what they can produce, how they do it, and to whom they may sell or distribute it is controlled by the state. It is also known as a "mixed economy" or, especially by marxists, Capitalism.

Adam Smith's definition of markets works better.

When LET TO BE (Laissez Faire) markets tend to be smoother, and work out their own knots. The anti capitalists like to point out free market failures, but in truth they almost always happen in the most regulated of markets if they happen big. Yes, a new business is likely to fail, but the MARKET does not. The individuals involved screw up somehow, and it gets corrected. The so called invisible hand.

Unfortunately, I am in the middle of moving across the freakin' country, so I don't have time to pursue this. I will say that I fall largely on the same side as Myrkul, from what I've seen so far. I will also state, for the record since I am new to this forum, that I was at one time a communist. I rejected it because as elegant as it seems on paper, it's adherents CANNOT explain how to get goods from a to c with any sort of regularity, other than just saying you don't "need" them. Free markets (including black markets) actually work regardless of belief. Realistic theories of polity have to accept that there is no such thing as an ideal world, and that what works BEST is better by orders of magnitude than what is simply pretty. The Communist Manifesto is pretty. Markets are not. Markets have WORKED since time immemorial. Communism has either accepted certain market elements or failed utterly.

There are certain elements of socialism that I think could be implemented within an anarchic society, but they would require SMALL VOLUNTARY communities, and those communities could not enforce their will on OTHER communities and individuals who chose to act and think differently. Even within that, all sides would have to respect the property of the others. This does not require a state, but it does require arms.

In a couple of weeks I'll be back online. I look forward to this discussion.

Myrkul and Zarathrusta, you both have valid points. Cool your jets and you'll get farther into each other's heads. This is good advice from a life long hothead.