Idk what to put here

I think it was just "comprehensive."
It wanted more of a joke than just Capitalism and Socialism, so it moved on to other subjects.

Only in the sense that the word is understood in America. The term "libertarian" has been co-opted by the right wing here in order to conflate capitalism with liberty, whereas in Europe it's generally understood that genuine libertarians are opposed to the hierarchical forms of economic authoritarianism and subsequent restrictions of civil liberties inherent in capitalism.

American libertarians would argue that liberty entails both civil AND economic liberty. European libertarianism is not necessarily the only "genuine" variety.

That is exactly my point; economic liberty would mean freedom from exploitative economic relationships (such as that between employer and employee) and a democratic control of the means of production, which is exactly what American libertarianism lacks.

First of all, I'm sure that as a self-described libertarian you know the dangers of state control of production, but I don't see how democratic/collective control of anything is possible without some sort of de facto government. Especially on a large scale. Could you explain that to me?

Secondly, I disagree that employer-employee relationships are inherently exploitative. Most people are not able to create stable and financially-successful businesses themselves. The benefit of selling one's labor to an employer as opposed to directly to the consumer is that in the former case you have job security and don't have to invent ways to compete in the market yourself. The employer has already come up with a (probably) successful business plan and a system of organization to increase productivity beyond what you or he could accomplish individually. (Plus many employers offer health insurance coverage and similar additional benefits.)
So there's mutual benefit. The profits may not be equally distributed, but I don't see that as a problem.
Of course, if the costs of having a boss outweigh the benefits in your opinion, you're not required to work for that employer or any employer at all, in which case you'd have to try to compete on the market on your lonesome, or maybe gather some friends to help you run your own business and divide up the profits as equals. Signing an employment contract is a voluntary act that indicates you prefer that option over the alternatives.

If "de facto government" is to be defined in such broad terms, then it must be observed that a private ownership of the means of production constitutes a de facto government as well; it is just a totalitarian government, whereas a collective ownership of the means of production would be a democratic one. If both of those options are de facto governments, then the latter is certainly the more libertarian of the two of them.

I think you're perfectly correct when you point out that the owners and highest benificiaries of corporate systems play a crucial organizational role in the system, but I don't see why that same role could not be fulfilled by a more democratic process over which the workers would have control. The important factor here is that the workers in corporate systems are not given that option by their superiors.

The suggestion you make at the end of your comment is precisely what I advocate. People should form democratic economic organizations and labor unions in order to replace the hierarchical corporate systems that exist today. The only thing preventing that from happening is that not enough people are aware of this problem.

A totalitarian government that you can opt out of (by quitting your job) is not much of a totalitarian government. Employees are not slaves, and employers are not all-powerful dictators. They have to pay wages and provide certain benefits and treat their employees humanely in order to have employees at all, in order to ensure maximum productivity, and in order to have a good reputation.

Here's what I meant when I said a government was necessary: there needs to be some organization of manageable size (as opposed to the entire population) that is in charge of regulating the use of public capital, ensuring that it is equally accessible to all and is well-maintained, and penalizing people who try to take public property for themselves or otherwise violate the established rules of the society. That's basically a government. Direct democracy can't work on a large scale because most people have neither the time nor the expertise to run it effectively. There'd also be tyranny of the majority or even tyranny of a minority, if voter turnout is low - and if voting is required, how could that be enforced? Indeed, how could anything be enforced without a governing body, except by angry mobs or vigilantes?

You're contradicting yourself in your own comment. As far as I understand it, you have identified two options for the management of an economic system: 1) by an individual, or a group of specific individuals (as in a corporation), or 2) by the body of workers (in an anarchist society, this would be called a "syndicate"). What I am saying is, if option 2 constitutes a de facto government as you stated, then it is analogous to a democratic one, whereas option 1 is analogous to a dictatorship, or an oligarchy. You can opt out of either one, but option 2 is still the preferable system. To assert that option 2 is more authoritarian than option 1 would be, to put it bluntly, stupid.

You appear to have a very narrow perception of what a "democratic" system would entail. Democray, or "rule by the people," can be expressed in a wide variety of ways.
Anarchists disagree on how exactly a society should be organized, but if you want to read up on some examples, you can see here:
http://www . infoshop . org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI
(Remove spaces)

I, personally, am an anarcho-syndicalist, meaning that I think the syndicate would best serve as a unit in discussing and deciding on what is best for the community, and those decisions can then be sent up to higher levels of organization to be further discussed among syndicates if necessary, then among towns and cities if necessary, etc. etc. But that's just my opinion.

The only time the usage of force or violence would be used, or even permitted, in an anarchist society, would be to stop others using force or violence. This would not be done by any specific body or institution, but would simply be the habit of the the members of the general population. Human beings are rational creatures, after all.

I have always thought that socialism is far more economically constrictive than capitalism. No matter what, the ability to choose what to own of your own volition is more "free" than just accepting what some higher authority deems to give you.

And yes, while your employer/job/capitalism may limit your buying power, it doesn't limit your buying CHOICE, and choice is what liberty is all about.

Socialism is only more constrictive for those who privately own the means of production under capitalism, as it strips them of their power to oppress others. For everyone else in the system, it should have a liberating effect.

Yes, you have the freedom to buy whatever you want with the money you have under capitalism. That, however, has no bearing on the fact that the money that you have is only a fraction of what you should have, while all the rest is robbed from you. What I am saying is that this system of robbery is objectively wrong and should be done away with. That would increase your buying power without limiting your choice.

"money that you have is only a fraction of what you should have, while all the rest is robbed from you"

I have a major problem with this sort of reasoning. You aren't entitled to have things. Being poorer than others does not mean that you have been robbed, or that others are wealthy at your expense.

Ownership of private property is not oppression, it's just ownership. Owning a factory or a plot of land is no different from owning a house or a car or a laptop.
As long as there aren't monopolies on the means of production, exchange is still voluntary and therefore ethical.

Perhaps I haven't been clear. Being wealthier than somebody is is NOT oppression, and I never implied at any point in this discussion that it was. I am going to explain what I mean to say in the simplest terms possible:
Business owners make money by taking large portions of the wealth generated by other people's work while doing little to none of the work necessary to generate that wealth. This process is sanctioned by the state's usage of force.
That is why it is robbery. Someone being richer than someone else isn't exploitative at all, but someone making you sign a contract to enter a relationship in which that person receives most of the money generated by your work, and in which you get arrested if you rebel against it, is nothing short of armed robbery.

To put it another way, you are entitled to have what you worked for, but you are not entitled to take what others worked for.

A bit of a caricature that I stumbled across, but an effective illustration nonetheless:

Man #1: What did you tell that man back there?
Man #2 (factory owner): I told him to work faster!
#1: How much do you pay him?
#2: Fifteen dollars a day.
#1: Where do you get the money to pay him?
#2: I sell products!
#1: Who makes those products?
#2: He does.
#1: How much product does he make in one day?
#2 Fifty dollars worth!
#1: Then instead of you paying him fifteen dollars a day, he pays you thirty-five dollars a day to tell him to work faster!
#2: Huh? Well... I own the machines!
#1: How did you get the machines?
#2: I sold products and bought them.
#1: Who made those products?
#2: Shhhh! He'll hear you!

http://www . youtube . com/watch?v=h5eNyO658kk

Well if they were being safe with their firearms they would at least keep their fingers off the triggers until they were ready to fire. So it could be a moot point but you never know

I agree, except some people simply never got an opportunity to get a decent education required to actually accomplish anything. That's why I think the welfare system should be revamped to give assistance to people in the form of education and jobs, not trivial money handouts.

I was gonna say food stamps but that is fine too. I just don't understand the point of literally giving money to people.

i believe in equal opportunity

I agree completely that If you want something, you need to work for it--which is why the means of production should be collectively owned by the working class. That way, those asshole CEOs won't be able to systematically rob their employees' hard earned money on a daily basis with state protection. Those are the entitled folk.
Compared to that, complaining about a small portion of all that stolen money being redistributed to those who are harmed most by that system is just revolting.

Support Anarchy is the dumbest thing ever, and is a school of thought only valid in the insane, high school dropouts, and middle schoolers. Wars, although some may not, can be justified. At least we aren't bombing ourselves.

You should look up the Spanish Revolution. When fascists in northern Spain revolted and started taking power, the anarchist unions CNT and the FAI organized the workers and peasantry of all of Catalonia and started a revolution. These people were very organized and as prominent as the Socialist and Communist parties, the only difference is they fought for the people, and didn't fight just to hold power like the Spanish Republic and Popular Front who later betrayed them.

I think you'd be surprised how intelligent some anarchists really are. Not the sort of anarchists who vandalize property and claim to be "non-conformists", but the sort of anarchists who literally believe the Social Contract is unethical and unnecessary. They're idealistic, perhaps, but not unintelligent.

Keep on bringing the ad hominem attacks. I could use the amusement.
In response to the only rational argument you make in your comment, that wars can be justified, I agree. While I am generally a pacifist, I do believe that organized violence can be justified, specifically if it will stave off some greater evil than the violence itself and all other options have been exhausted. However, this very rarely the case when states wage war. Wars are usually waged in order to preserve the wealth and power of the ruling elites of the belligerent naiton-states, and are in such cases wholly unjustified acts of mass murder. Furthermore, it is almost impossible to justify anti-civilian attacks such as the bombings portrayed in the image above. Explain to me why you think a society run by the people on a libertarian and direct-democratic basis would be more violent than one run by the bureaucratic mass-killing machines that run the world today.

Anarchy is impossible due to the nature of human beings. Yes, there is corruption even in organization, but in anarchy there is no government to stop a massive gang. Without the government, Al Capone would not have been shut down. Militia's and other groups who organize, and group up will always dominate. It's like trusting everyone else, which we cannot do because humans are selfish pricks.

Anarchists are opposed to all forms of authoritarianism and aggression. I am just as opposed to the mafia, militias, and "massive gangs" as I am to government. As I said before though, it is necessary for a libertarian society to be highly organized in order to prevent individuals and groups from gaining the power to oppress others, as well as for the same reasons that any other society must be organized. The assumption that such organization must be hierarchical and authoritarian, however, is absurd.

You're suggesting a lack of organization, yet implying there would be an organization to stop other organizations. Al Capone was really difficult to stop. I doubt some rag tag, shady, and vague public group could have stopped him.

I'm not suggesting a lack of organization, I explicitly stated that there would be organization, it would just be direct-democratic and from the bottom up rather than from the top down. You're clinging to a straw man argument that I have already refuted multiple times.
Yes, Al Capone was difficult to stop, be he should still have been stopped, and so should the government.

No, it's just the fact that everything you've said is still incredibly vague and loose-stringed. With a touch of common sense one could see how it is impossible.

If you're looking for more detail as to how an anarchistic society would function, check out this link (remove spaces):
http://www . infoshop . org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI

Ohhh its funny cause a C-130 isn't a bomber (normally, MOABs dont count)

well out of fairness, you never know what you yourself will do or if you'll be corrupted by power until you get power
sounds corny but the truth is still relevant: "nobody is perfect"

Actually, I give 30 percent of my check now to charity, and I feel damn good about myself. And I'd still do it if I made millions

so you give 30% of your check to charity, and then 50%+ to taxes?
you must be making north of 6 figures then

I'm 18 and still live with my parents, I keep about 100 dollars from my check after bills, taxes, and charity for things that I may need. I'm not much for flashy stuff, I don't have nice clothes, and until I have a family that I'll need the money for, I'll give at least some of my check to charity.

well I'm sorry to say that you'll have to add your income with your parents income and find your HOUSEHOLD income, as it is done in taxes. so in actuality you're probably only donating 1-3% not 30%

I should cut you off there, charity is a huge tax write-off, so my taxes are pretty minimal.

what the fuck, how do you live

Money and power are two very different things.

not really....

Libertarians believe in a conservative economy with liberal social values. This man is not a libertarian, hes a full on anarchist.

Anarcho-capitalism fails to take into account the inherently exploitative and hierarchical authoritarian aspects of capitalism.
Do yourself a favor and read more about actual anarchism:
http://www . infoshop . org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionF
(Remove spaces)

anarchy is freedom, if it is anything else it's because human nature made it that way. We believe we need government and physical law, but what I ask is what about not having that should make me act any more or less decent in life that I already do? I believe in anarchy and anarcho-capitalism, but I fear we are not ready for it because most of us could not handle freedom or someone not telling us what to do.

You didn't address the point I made, which is that capitalism is inherently authoritarian (employer to employee relationship) and irreconcilable with anarchism.
To put it simply, the way employers make money--taking the "surplus value" of the wealth generated by the labor of their employees--is robbery in the same sense that taxation is robbery. That, I think, should be obvious. Socialism means abolishing that exploitative relationship, which is necessary in preserving a genuinely libertarian society.

You make no sense, sir. From what I understood of that horribly written argument, I glean that you want a socialist libertarian anarchist society.

Capitalism in itself is not bad, and neither is communism. The issue it that real world agendas (i.e. everyone wants more, but only few can succeed) prevent either from working well, and so we get horribly unbalanced populaces and fascism.

Socialism doesn't abolish this at all, rather it eliminates the large wealth gap by preventing large businesses from taking everything (specifically, by putting those in government control - better hope your government's not corrupt).

You misunderstood my point. Socialism has absolutely nothing to do with government; in fact, I believe "state-socialism" is a contradiction in terms, as is "libertarian capitalism." The definition of socialism is a system in which the means of production are owned collectively and managed democratically by the people who work them, rather than by a few individuals, and that is exactly how I used the term.

Yet socialism is most definitely a government system. It's certainly never used any way else.

You're rather idealistic. Tell us what the various political and economic systems are supposed to be isn't the same as actually making them. Communism, capitalism, socialism etc. all work IN THEORY ONLY - they each have severe weaknesses when put into practice, mostly because people inherently take advantage of whatever they can.

Except I've just explained to you why socialism is most definitely not a government system, and that the way it's been used, as you say, is not really socialism at all.
The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, etc. etc., are/were NOT socialist countries. As I said, the definition of socialism is workers' control over the means of produciton. This alone has nothing to do with government, and it is of the opinion of most anarchists, myself included, that it is impossible to reconcile government with socialism.
If you want examples of genuine forms of socialism in history, do some reading on the Spanish Revolution (1936), the Paris Commune (1871), and the Saigon Commune (1945), just to name a few.

I reject the notion that people inherently take advantage of whatever they can, but even if it is true, anarchism is regardless the least flawed of all political and economic systems.

Socialism isn't supposed to be a government system, but that's what it ends up as. You can argue what it's defined as all you want, doesn't change how the real world works (which you clearly don't understand).

Your rejection of clear facts basically invalidate your entire argument. In capitalism, richer owners take advantage of the poor workers, in socialism the government takes advantage of the people (to an extent, depends on where you are), in communism one person always ends up as a dictator - and it's no longer communism. I needn't say that dictatorships or monarchies end in corruption.

Anarchism can't be flawed, because it's the LACK of government. That doesn't make it right at all. Sure, governments have issues, but you seem to be ignoring the vast evidence AGAINST anarchism - like, for instance, the Middle Ages, which were basically anarchism (there was a government, but it did absolutely nothing). Not too good. Or for instance, right after the government in Egypt fell, there was chaos - and there still is some. Morsi is doing a very good job managing it IMHO - and he's using GOVERNMENT.

Sure, you can name instances of socialism that worked. Now do that with anarchism. Betcha can't - there wouldn't have been records of it anyways.

"Middle Ages...were basically anarchism"
"...right after the government of Egypt fell [was anarchism]"
Nigga, you just went full retard.

Also, to answer your question, all of the examples I gave you were, as a matter of fact, functioning examples of anarchism, or what essentially amounted to anarchism (whether or not it was called that).
My whole point regarding socialism is that socialism is not really socialism unless it is anarchism. This, again, refers back to the definition of socialism as "workers' control of the means of production." Marxist dictatorships have all called themselves "socialist" in order to justify their rule, but that doesn't mean that they actually were. Does the repression in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea prove that democratic republics inherently lead to totalitarianism? Obviously not.

Nigga... get your facts straight. Nice taking me out of context, for all intents and purposes the Middle Ages were anarchism due to the government's complete and utter lack of control.

After Mubarak fell, fuck YES there was anarchism! In all fairness, it was soon replaced by a military oligarchy of sorts, but that's what anarchism gets you.

You have, once again, proven yourself wrong. "Marxist dictatorships have all called themselves 'socialist' in order to justify their rule, but that doesn't mean that they actually were" - i.e., nearly every attempt at communism or socialism ever.

One example does not an argument make. Multiple ones do. China, Russia, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba were all either once or are now officially communist - and at that time, they were/are no more than dolled up dictatorships. I'll give more if you want. Nope, no socialism - except that's what they called it.

Of course, I'm ignoring the fact that every example of "anarchism" you've given is just communism, on a small scale where it actually worked (briefly). Fuck, the work COMMUNE is in two of them.

(Before rebutting, I should define one more term;
Communsim: a system in which not only the means of production, but also the product, are owned communally by the society)

Was there freedom from hierarchical forms of government and a collective and democratic ownership of the means of production in the societies of the Middle Ages? In Egypt in the aftermath of Mubarak's resignation? If the answer is "no" then congratulations! You understand why Medieval Europe and post-Mubarak Egypt were not anarchist societies!
(I am absolutely baffled that I would need to point out to anyone that Medieval Europe was filled to the brim with tribalistic monarchies that ruled through war and terror, and that the Egyptian government still existed and maintained power--under the auspices of the military no less--after Mubarak's fall from power.)

Marxist dictatorships are not "...attempt[s] at communism or socialism," or at least not attempts at genuine communism or socialism that meet the definitions of the terms. They were not socialistic, nor were they communistic, because workers were not in control of the means of production; the dictatorial government was. This is objectively true, because THAT. IS. THE. FUCKING. DEFINITION. OF. SOCIALISM.
I mean, Jesus fucking Christ, how many times do I have to explain that??

And yes, the examples that I gave were all examples of functioning communist societies (I'll set aside the fact that the Spanish revolution was explicitly anarchistic as well), but they were all libertarian forms of communism that organized society on a democratic basis and eliminated systems of hierarchical domination; ergo, anarchism.
To put it in more simple (if not a bit sloppy) terms, libertarianism+communism=anarchism.

Looks like you'll have to explain again, because you're fucking wrong.

Let's see, Medieval Europe had government you say? Why might that be wrong? Could it possibly be because no-one, person or people, governed it? Oh sure, there were plenty of little tiny "governments" - one for every single fucking lord or nobleman everywhere, of which there were THOUSANDS. Government? I think not. That's anarchism, which is the lack of government, not any of the definitions you've given.
True, the military came to power shortly after Mubarak fell, but there was nearly a week of anarchy - during which there was chaos - and it led to a military oligarchy. How's your anarchism looking now?

I'm not sure how YOU fail to understand that the ATTEMPTS at communism were just that - ATTEMPTS. They didn't work, not one bit. Doesn't make them not attempts. Stop arguing with yourself, you're looking more and more like a potato every minute.

Libertarian communism? No, just no. Anarchism is lack of government, lack of any rule whatsoever. IRREGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU CALL IT, IF THERE IS ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT, THAT IS NOT FUCKING ANARCHISM. You haven't given an example yet, you haven't even convinced me that you know anything about what you're saying. Good day to you sir, and good luck with getting healthcare, education, a job, currency, and protection from anything with your anarchism.

<< summary of your argument

I'm sorry, but you are just completely wrong about the definitions of the words "anarchism" and "libertarianism." It's impossible to argue with you if you're going to refuse to concede to the actual political definitions of those words.

Anarchism does not mean chaos and disorder. It means the lack of a ruling authority. If you're going to just sit there and be all like "NOPE. NOPE. LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU," every time I try to explain something that you disagree with, then it's not possible for us to have a meaningful discussion.

Here, read this introduction to anarchism. Then post your reply.
http://www . infoshop . org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA1
(Remove spaces)

I have read it. It's an anarchism propaganda site, and therefore the source is invalid for my purposes.

I understand the definitions, but it appears that you do not. I can hear you just fine. You're still wrong. Doesn't change a thing. I must say the same about you - if you refuse to hear MY side of the argument, it is indeed impossible to discuss this intelligently. I have put forth my argument, you simply say my definitions are wrong, and point EVERYONE to one anarchist propaganda site. I have given far more evidence than you have, far more evidence than even exists, and you still deny it.

This is not intelligent conversation. This is you standing on half a leg, trying to stand up, while I roll over you with a tank that I'd like to call Knowledge.

Just so you know:
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
1. a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2. a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

Please don't refer to 1c.

Definition of UTOPIAN
1: of, relating to, or having the characteristics of a utopia; especially : having impossibly ideal conditions especially of social organization
2: proposing or advocating impractically ideal social and political schemes <utopian idealists>
3: impossibly ideal : visionary <recognised the utopian nature of his hopes — C. S. Kilby>

In addition, the Greek root anarchos means lack of authority or government, something which communism (which is what you're advocating) clearly isn't.

Yeah, no fucking shit it's a pro-anarchist site. Where the fuck else would you expect arguments in favor of anarchism to come from? Anti-anarchist websites?
Don't give me that "propaganda" bullshit just because it argues in favor of a philosophy you disagree with. I chose the website because I find it presents the most well-cited and well-argued case for anarchism that I have ever come across.

You are correct about the dictionary definition of anarchy, but that is not what I am referring to. I am talking about anarchism, a political ideology which has its roots in the writings of a long line of philosophers from the nineteenth century onward, most notably Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, and Alexander Berkman, among numerous others.

Falsely equating anarchism, the political philosophy, with "anarchy" in the vernacular sense of the word, does not function as a valid criticism of anarchism, because the two are not the same thing. The first anarchists did not intend to imply the state of chaos and disorder that the word "anarchy" has come to generally signify. We could have an argument about whether or not "anarchism" is really an appropriate name for the philosophy, or if what the philosophy promotes should really be called a system of government, but that would be completely meaningless. The philosophy is called anarchism by its proponents, regardless of what you and I think of the appropriateness of that terminology. Personally, I prefer to just call it "libertarian socialism" whenever possible, just to avoid all of the ridiculous connotations that the words "anarchy" and "anarchism" carry with them.

Maybe you should call it that, since anarchy and/or anarchism (please don't argue over synonyms, you look like an idiot) are not communism, which is what you've been describing this entire time. Incidentally, communism is a great idea (again, in theory only) and when it does work (you gave three examples), it's great - but it only works on small scales, for short periods of time.

If you knew how to analyze sources, you would know that it's your site would NEVER be considered valid in itself, no matter how well-cited or well-argued it is - it is pro-anarchist, and therefore has inherent bias regardless of how well it is presented. A dictionary definition is as close as possible to a completely unbiased definition.

You have a fine case for your argument, if and only if you call it what it is (communism) and realize that it hasn't worked on any meaningful scale in the real world.

(Your unwillingness to accept my definitions of the words I was using is entirely understandable, I should clarify. It is good to be skeptical about things such as this. But, as I said in my comment below, this is why I linked you to another source.)

You can't possibly be serious. Expressing favor for a certain opinion makes any argument in favor of that opinion invalid because it is biased? Well then how in the fuck is anyone supposed to argue in favor of any opinion about anything, at all, ever?
By your logic, I should consider all of your comments thus far to be entirely invalid, simply because they are explicitly opposed to anarchism, and are therefore "propaganda."

Eliminating bias is something that you're supposed to do when attempting to obtain or present only the objective facts of a situation, in which case you're not supposed to argue for one side over another.; but that is not what I'm trying to do, nor is it what the creators of the website I linked to are trying to do. I am trying to argue specifically in favor of my side of the issue, in which case my arguments are supposed to be biased, because I am trying to advocate an opinion. That's kind of the whole fucking point of any argument.

The reason I linked you to another source is because you are willing to accept neither the legitimacy of my usage of certain terms such as "libertarian" and "communist," nor my explanations of how the terms have been defined by the philosophers that invented them, whereas infoshop's FAQ cites all of those philosophers to prove that such usages are legitimate usages of the words.

Whether or not communism (which usually coincides with the philosophy of anarchism, as opposed to being inconsistent with it, as you claim--something you should know from reading the introduction to the FAQ) can work on a larger scale than it has historically is not known, and cannot be known, as it has not been tried on such a scale before. I don't see any reason that it couldn't, though.

USSR, China, etc... this were the attempts. Look at the results.

And when looking for something such as a definition (and I am really trying to prove that your definition is wrong), yes, bias must be eliminated.

Your site is perfectly valid if we were arguing about how communism (or in your words, anarchism) worked. It's not, however, a valid source to define the meaning of anything, due to said bias.

I am serious, I don't believe you're correct, nor will your sources sway me (as apparently mine cannot sway you). Just because you apply a pre-existing word to an event, object or thing doesn't make it the right word.

Put another way, if anarchism is what I would call communism, what do you call the complete lack of government which I would call anarchism?

Again, I am referring to the definition of anarchism as defined by the creators of the philosophy of anarchism. The creator(s) of any given philosophy have a monopoly on the definition of that philosophy, and are therefore more reliable sources for the definition than Merriam-Webster could ever possibly be. If I say, "I have created the new philosophy of X-ism, which is defined as X," then X-sim is defined as X. Period. End of story. It doesn't matter what any dictionary says about my philosophy, because I have a monopoly on the definition of any philosophy that I create.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who is considered generally to be the ideological father of the anarchist movement, describes "anarchy" as, "the absence of a master, of a sovereign." And it is upon this definition of the word that anarchism is founded.

Again, USSR China, etc. were not attempts at libertarian communism or socialism, which is what I have been describing this whole time.

To answer your question, I would use the word "disorder" or "chaos" to describe a society with a complete lack of order and organization.

The "employee-to-employer" relationship that you attempt to describe is entirely voluntary on behalf of the employed, and therefore, by definition, cannot be authoritarian. Anti-government capitalism is the only system where true freedom can exist, since at that point all coercive governmental acts are eliminated, and corporations are by nature incapable of replicating those acts in a free market environment due to the voluntary fabric of such a society.

I'm absolutely flabbergasted that you could make such an asinine assertion as that that the relationship between employer and employed is voluntary and on behalf of the employed. The employed is forced by pre-existing inequalities to enter a relationship in which the majority of his hard-earned money is taken by someone who does none of the actual work himself. Corporations are not the least bit democratic and function as totalitarian systems. They are essentially economic proto-states. One could only conceive such a system as being voluntary in the same sense that the relationship between governor and governed could be seen as voluntary--and I think you and I both understand why that's a ton of horseshit.

You make all this assumptions on the basis that all people have the work ethic of drug addled high school dropout. The system in, contrary to popular belief, is not stacked against the "glorious working class"; it's stacked against everyone. Equally. No one is born the head of a corporation, it required work to get there, and if not work, then shrewd cunning, and they deserve their money. No one ever said that you are stuck at the level you were born in; if you don't like being a member of the "oppressed proletariat", then the answer is simple; don't be one! The idealism of socialism is unrealistic; it's a dog-eat-dog world whether you like it or not, and humanity won't cooperate just because it would be better that way (because really, it would). When I say that capitalism is voluntary I am saying that when a man is born, he has the potential to do anything he sets his mind to; the possibilities are, quite literally, limitless. There is no such such thing as a free lunch. Never has been, never will be, but at the same time, there is no evil collective corporate conspiracy to consciously direct your every action into their service.

You failed to address any part of my argument, which is that the money accumulated by bussiness-owning employers is taken from the workers without contributing any of the necessary work in creating that wealth, and amounts to nothing more than state-sanctioned theft. Because of this fact, the rest of what you said is untrue. Sociologists have long abandoned any idea of the United States being a meritocracy. You can, literally, work as hard as you possibly can and make all the right decisions all your life, and still be dirt-poor, whereas others can just sit on their ass and watch their money grow without having to lift a finger, just by being born with the right amount of wealth to start off with.

OY MATE
I am NOT robbery!
All this speak of me being a government scam is wearing thin.
I never shoulda taken this username.

Libertarian socialism, to be more specific. Capitalism is inherently authoritarian and hierarchical and is based on robbing the working class through manipulation of private property. In order for it to be a truly free society, those forms of hierarchical exploitation need to be abolished, meaning that the workers themselves must control the means of production, instead of having to take orders from and give their earnings to employers.
http://www . infoshop . org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ
(Remove spaces)

I don't see anything wrong with getting rich by selling goods or services people want, or with paying people in exchange for their labor. It's not as if these things are involuntary or infringe upon anyone's rights.

That's not what I meant. The authoritarian part of capitalism lies in its basis upon the exploitation of the labor of others in order draw dividends from the wealth generated by those to whose work the property owner has contributed nothing. This is portrayed in propaganda as payment in exchange for labor, but it's really just theft.

Example of what I mean:
http://www . youtube . com/watch?v=h5eNyO658kk
(Remove spaces)

The "authoritarian" part of capitalism you're arguing about is de facto authoritarianism, and can be easily remedied by labor unions or lawsuits or other public movements. After all, in a true free-market society, nobody is forced to work for or purchase from any business they don't like. (For example, if you don't like the way Wal-Mart runs its business, there is nothing that would force you to shop or work there.)

Socialism, on the other hand, is the result of stringent social and economic planning by a strong central government. It requires de jur authoritarianism in order to be successful. That type of authoritarianism is much harder to shake off.

The definition of socialism is simply n economic system in which the means of production are owned and managed by the people who work them. It is a common misconception that socialism necessarily implies some form of government interference in the economic system to make things more equal for everyone, but this is simply incorrect. All it means is that the workers control their own workplace democratically, and decide amongst themselves how to divide the profits of their labor. In an anarchist society (that is to say, a socialist society), the workers would be the one's making the decisions, on a democratic basis, and the employer would not exist to leech off of their work.
The misconception that socialism=government derives from the [mis]usage of the word "socialism" by state-socialists (another oxymoron, like anarcho-capitalist), such as Marx, Lenin, Mao, et cetera, to describe the system that they advocated, and later achieved in various countries. The system employed in "socialist" countries, such as the Soviet Union and China, is in fact not socialist, by definition, since the means of production is controlled by the government and not the workers. This misusage of the word socialism was employed by the likes of Lenin in order to gain the support of the same working class they were in fact oppressing, and it was also promoted in the West in order to do the opposite; namely, to defame socialism by associating it with the brutality of the aforementioned governments.

The problem with a purely democratic socialism like you described (and anarchy, for that matter) is that it creates a vacuum for any power-hungry authoritarian regime to take charge.

I believe it was Stalin who said something like "It doesn't matter who votes. What matters is who counts the votes." In your perfectly democratic socialism, who is going to count the votes? Who is going to tell the people which policies to follow? Whoever that person or group is will quickly accumulate political power and inevitably dominate the system.

That's the problem with governmentless systems. They sound nice, but human nature makes them impossible.

It would not create a power vacuum as you said, so long as the people of the society organize themselves in a democratic fashion in such a way that prevents anyone else from attaining power over others. Voting, in the sense that we are familiar with the concept, would probably not exist in such a society, as the kind of democracy would be much more participatory than the system we have today. Nobody is going to tell anyone else which policies to follow, as the system would be completely voluntary (that's kind of the whole point of libertarianism...), and it would be up to individuals to decide for themselves and amongst others which courses of action to take.

If you're looking for more detail as to how an anarchist society would be run, I suggest you take a look at Section I of this FAQ:
http://www . infoshop . org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ
(Remove spaces)

You've given yourself an impossible task. You say that nobody is going to tell anyone else what policies to follow. But then who is going to create the system in the first place?

If you can create a utopian, governmentless socialist system without any form of leadership or oligarchy, and without infringing on the people's right to refuse to participate in the system, give me a call. I want a cut of the Nobel Prize.

The system would be created by those who opt to participate, which I imagine would be the vast majority of the population, considering that the alternative would be to not receive any of the benefits of that society.

The only reason the society I'm talking about doesn't exist is because elite interests throughout the world are opposed to it and have succeed in convincing their subjects, through propaganda, that it is not desirable.

Stop right there. Don't you start going on about how "the Man is holding you down." That's a cheap bullshit way to end a debate. It has no basis in fact, and it does nothing to prove the validity of your ideas.

I have a low tolerance for bullshit. So don't try pulling that "elites controlling the world" shit on me. If you want me to listen to your ideas about libertarian socialism, do it properly.

"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy or the grey aliens or the 12 foot reptiloids from another dimension that are in control. The truth is more frightening, nobody is in control. The world is rudderless."--Alan Moore

By elites I am referring to the ruling classes of all the nations of the world. I am not referring to one particular group that rules the planet on its own. That would just be absurd.
In the Western world, the ruling classes are those who own the means of production and accumulate wealth by exploiting the workers; or in other words, corporate owners. I call them the "ruling classes" in this case because various economic factors, such as the corporatization of the mass media, and the media's reliance on advertising from other corporations, creates a systematic pro-corporate bias in the mas outlets for distributing information in our society, which affects how people vote and how they perceive the government. Obviously, only a complete nutjob would believe that there is some cabal of conspirators who control the system through their schemes, but the upper classes in Western society do nonetheless have all of the power due to the basic workings of the economic system we have.
To point this out is not a conspiracy theory, it is merely a logical institutional analysis of the effects of the factors that influence the socioeconomic systems of Western nations.
For more information, you should read Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky.

But again, nobody is forcing you to participate. If you don't want to purchase something from one of those "ruling classes", you don't have to. That's the entire reason why businesses need commercials in the first place. All they're trying to do is convince you to buy from them. If they were truly in control of the people, they wouldn't need to do that--they would just force you.

It's important not to underestimate the power that regular people have in a free market. We are the ones who give value to things. We are the ones who determine which businesses succeed and which ones fail. Of course businesses are going to try to convince us one way or the other--they want their business to succeed. And in some cases they do a really good job of it--like Apple. But at the end of the day, no matter how effective the advertisements are, purchasing a product is a conscious decision that has to be made by the consumer. And in a free market, there is nothing preventing them from saying "no".

You've completely misunderstood what I've said. Being able to buy things or not buy things has absolutely nothing to do with the systems of economic domination in this country. Economic oppression in the US derives from the business-owning class's ability to coercively draw monetary dividends from the labor of their employees. You can opt to not participate and to create a new system instead, which is exactly what I encourage people to do, except the corporate influences over the mass media prevents people from perceiving any need to do that.

You do know where wealth comes from, right? Businesses don't create wealth out of thin air, and they certainly don't beat it out of their employees. Wealth comes from the exchange of goods and services which are created by businesses and sold on the market. Businesses need labor to create those products, and the laborers are then compensated for their labor with wages.

How much a laborer is paid depends on the supply and demand for laborers in that field. That's why burger flippers (high supply but low demand) get paid less than chemical engineers (low supply but high demand). A burger flipper might not like how little he/she is paid, but as long as their are hundreds of other people who would readily take their place at a moment's notice, there's no reason for their wage to change.

This isn't "oppression" or "manipulation". That's just a bunch of emotionally-charged ad hominem drivel. It's just the most fair way to compensate people for their labor.

If you don't like it, then don't get a job. But many people realize that even a bad job is better than no job.

... just now?

Human nature is quite the opposite, I don't know how people can judge human nature based on what happens in this fucked up society. Humans before civilization were collective and caring of their communities. Now there is no such thing as a community when people living in complexes and flats don't even know their neighbors. Action movies and violence are supported so much on TV and always make the highest ranked movies, but when someone takes a gun and kills 30 people in a mall or school people blame human nature instead of the society and culture that bore him because they are too fucking apathetic and insane themselves to realize how fucked up and unnatural of a life we are all living.

Totally in agreement with you. Peter Kropotkin makes an excellent case for a cooperative human nature in Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution.
I wasn't agreeing in the critics who say that human nature refutes anarchism, if that's what you thought. I was merely stating that the logic of their own argument contradicts itself as a criticism of anarchism.

Awesome, I'll have to look into that book. I've mostly ever read some of John Zerzan's and Edward Abbey's work and a few things on the Spanish Revolution, but I have definitely heard of Kropotkin. Also I didn't think you were agreeing with that notion, I just went on a rant, maybe someone else will stumble upon it and understand what you mean though.

If the problem is that human beings generally oppress each other the very moment they are able to do so (which might not necessarily be true), then the solution should be to ensure that nobody will ever have the power to oppress other people, which is exactly what anarchism strives for. People arguing against anarchism assert that a government is necessary to forcibly prevent people from oppressing others, but the flaw of that logic is that the people in that government then become the oppressors.

ok, you be the red guy and I'll be the blue guy
glad we agree