Oh, Anarchist communists – what say thee?
This video is my last ditch attempt to grab from the jaws of logic an answer from the “anarchist-communist” to make an actual argument for an ethical principle!
Who will enforce your system, without resorting to centralization and violent measures????
God help me.
Duration : 0:6:55
This is a reading of Peter Kropotkin’s 1905 article on ‘anarchism’ from the Encyclopaedia Britannica. The article gained attention for being an objective explanation of all of the main principles of anarchism. I am the speaker reading the text.
Duration : 0:7:12
Please watch the question clarification video by VarmitCoyote on his back-up channel at this link:
And subscribe to his main channel here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/VarmitCoyote
Here his the link to the original video on which Varmit posted the original question using his back-up channel VarmitC:
And the wikipedia article describing and discussing Anarcho-Communism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Communism
Duration : 0:5:7
I have been called out for a debate by an anarcho-comunist who puts forth the challenge that if I favour capitalism, I have no right to call myself an anarchist. The same goes for “property rights” – that if I favour this, I fail once again in designating myself as an anarchist.
—————————————————————————————————–
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “libertarian anarchy,”[1] “market anarchism,”[2] “free market anarchism”[3] or “private-property anarchism”[4]) is a libertarian[5][6] and individualist anarchist[7] political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favour of individual sovereignty in a free market. Economist Murray Rothbard is credited with coining the term.[8][9] In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics. Furthermore, victimless crimes and crimes against the state would not exist.
Anarcho-capitalists argue for a society based on the voluntary trade of private property and services (including money, consumer goods, land, and capital goods) in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity. However, they also recognize charity and communal arrangements as part of the same voluntary ethic.[10] Though anarcho-capitalists are known for asserting a right to private (individualized or joint non-public) property, some propose that non-state public or community property can also exist in an anarcho-capitalist society.[11] For them, what is important is that it is acquired and transferred without help or hindrance from the compulsory state. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians believe that the only just, and/or most economically beneficial, way to acquire property is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud.[12]
Anarcho-capitalists see free-market capitalism as the basis for a free and prosperous society. Murray Rothbard said that the difference between free-market capitalism and “state capitalism” is the difference between “peaceful, voluntary exchange” and a collusive partnership between business and government that uses coercion to subvert the free market.[13] “Capitalism,” as anarcho-capitalists employ the term, is not to be confused with state monopoly capitalism, crony capitalism, corporatism, or contemporary mixed economies, wherein market incentives and disincentives may be altered by state action.[14] So they reject the state, based on the belief that states are aggressive entities which steal property (through taxation and expropriation), initiate aggression, are a compulsory monopoly on the use of force, use their coercive powers to benefit some businesses and individuals at the expense of others, create monopolies, restrict trade, and restrict personal freedoms via drug laws, compulsory education, conscription, laws on food and morality, and the like. The embrace of unfettered capitalism leads to considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists and many social anarchists that view capitalism and its market as just another authority. Anti-capitalist anarchists generally consider anarcho-capitalism a contradiction in terms,[15] and vice versa.
Duration : 0:13:4
A Panel Discussion on Anarchism And Marxism
Chair: Andrej Grubacic, Sociology, University of San Fancisco
Andrej Grubačić is an anarchist historian who has written prolifically on anarchism and the history of the Balkans. He is a lecturer at the ZMedia Institute and University of San Francisco.
Denis O’Hearn, Sociology, Queens College, Belfast
Denis O’Hearn has been a community activist in Belfast, serving for many years as chair of the West Belfast Economic Forum and on the Board of Governors of the Irish-language primary school Scoil na Fuisoige. He taught at the University of Wisconsin and Queens University in Belfast and was a Fulbright Scholar at University College Dublin in 1991-92. He is now professor of sociology at the University of Binghamton in New York.
Cindy Milstein, Institute for Anarchist Studies
Cindy Milstein is an anarchist activist and educator who talks at various anarchist and socialist gatherings. She has also been involved with the Institute for Social Ecology, and is currently a board member with the Institute for Anarchist Studies and a co-organizer of the Renewing the Anarchist Tradition conference. Milstein speaks regularly in public, at anarchist conferences and bookfairs as well as radical spaces, including the Finding Our Roots conference, the Unschooling Oppression conference, the Montreal Anarchist Bookfair, the Bay Area Bookfair, the New York Anarchist Book Fair, and Left Forum, among others. Her essays are published in several recent anthologies–Realizing the Impossible: Art against Authority (AK Press, 2007), Globalize Liberation (City Lights, 2004), Confronting Capitalism (Soft Skull, 2004), and Only a Beginning (Arsenal Pulp Press, 2004) as well as on the Free Society Collective Web site. She is also a collective member of the all-volunteer Black Sheep Books in Montpelier, Vermont.
Ziga Vodovnik, University of Ljubljana
Ziga Vodovnik is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, where his teaching and research is focused on anarchist theory/praxis and social movements in the Americas. His new book Anarchy of Everyday Life Notes on anarchism and its Forgotten Confluences will be released in late 2008.
Duration : 0:8:13
Long Live Marxism, Leninism and Maoism !!!
http://english.pobediteli.ru/
http://www.rwor.org/
http://www.kaypakkaya-partizan.org/
http://www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secN…
http://handsoffchina.org/
http://krasnoe.tv
http://kprf.ru/dep/72265.html
http://www.pcc.cu/conceptorev.php
http://www.partisan-news.blogspot.com
http://poderproletario.blogspot.com/
http://www.revolutionarycommunist.org/
☭☆
The Real Bases for Change—and the Real Alternatives
So this is how things actually are in regard to the present circumstances of human society and the possibilities for how society can proceed and be organized: It is a matter of either bringing about a radical alternative to the presently dominant capitalist-imperialist system—an alternative which is viable, and sustainable, because it proceeds on the basis of the productive forces at hand and further unfetters them, through the transformation of the social relations, and most fundamentally the production relations and, in dialectical relation with that, the transformation of the superstructure of politics and ideology—creating, through this transformation, and fundamentally the transformation of the underlying material conditions, a radically new economic system, as the foundation of a radically new society as a whole; either that, or, what will in fact assert itself as the only real alternative in today’s world—being drawn, or forced, into a society proceeding on the terms, and locked within the confines, of commodity production and exchange, and more specifically the production relations and accumulation process and dynamics of capitalism, and its corresponding social relations and relations of political power, as well as its prevailing culture, ideology and morality. It’s either one or the other. Those are the two choices.
Who are we to say so? We are interpreters of reality; we’re scientific investigators and synthesizers of reality, that’s who we are. It’s reality that says this, and we are those who, at this time, have come to understand this—not through some mystical or religious process but through applying a science that’s been developed and is continually being developed.
So it’s either the one or the other—and all other schemes will lead to one or the other. If they are not consciously striving for the first, they will lead to the second: if they are not consciously striving for a whole, radically new and different world, they will lead back to, or be co-opted within, or crushed by, the existing old world. You try to carve out little enclaves or ways in which you operate independently of the system—you’re either eaten alive and spit out by the system, or you are an insignificant countercurrent, for a while, to the actual dynamics and prevailing relations of the system, a countercurrent which will sooner or later, in fact, be eaten alive—if not literally crushed politically, just overwhelmed—by the dynamics of this system.
This is a system that operates, just like every system, according to certain dynamics and through certain relations. And as long as you haven’t radically ruptured with that system and brought about something in its place which can actually replace it and be viable and sustainable, you will be forced back into that system: that system of private ownership of the means of production, of capital, that system of commodity production and exchange, that system driven by anarchy of production and the resulting conflict among capitalists, a system in which capital takes form as many and competing capitals, not one gigantic block of capital, which itself would be out of line with the dynamics of commodity production and exchange and the anarchy of production, and would be broken up by those dynamics, repeatedly. Just look at the history of this country, including in more recent times: even gigantic amalgamations of capital go under or are broken up and re-formed in different associations of capital. This is all as a result of the underlying dynamics of this system. If you do not rupture with that, through a revolution in the superstructure, and the radical transformation of the economic base to something which can actually be viable and sustainable and function in place of those dynamics, you will get those dynamics back—because people have to eat and people have to have other necessities of life, and that will happen through one form or another in accordance with the productive forces at hand, generally speaking. So, if you don’t consciously bring about the one, you will get the other. In one form or another and through one avenue or another, you’ll get the same fundamental dynamics of capitalism, if you don’t consciously rupture with that and actually make revolution to uproot and abolish the whole capitalist system, replacing it with socialism and advancing on the road to a communist world.
Duration : 0:9:5
I head over to MIT from Toronto to meet my hero, my maker, the intellectual demigod, Noam Chomsky, to have a brief talk about Anarchism and miscellaneous topics. I apologize for the excessive stuttering, I was probably more nervous and intimidated than I had ever been in my entire life.
Poor technology means poor audio quality, and inconsistent clips. =(
4/6
Recording Date: February 13th, 2009.
Duration : 0:9:1
I head over to MIT from Toronto to meet my hero, my maker, the intellectual demigod, Noam Chomsky, to have a brief talk about Anarchism and miscellaneous topics. I apologize for the excessive stuttering, I was probably more nervous and intimidated than I had ever been in my entire life.
Poor technology means poor audio quality, and inconsistent clips. =(
1/6
Recording Date: February 13th, 2009.
Duration : 0:9:1
NewVinland’s webcam video April 22, 2011 11:16 AM
Monopolies in a Stateless Society