The first point from my personal perspective is this, I don't mind authority and hierarchy unless it can justify itself, but in many cases it can't, in nature hierarchy and authority is a self survival mechanism, bees feed their queen not because she is the ancestor of someone who proclaimed she or he had a divine right to rule, they feed her because she gives birth keeping their society functioning also the queen as no decision making power which is crucial for us. No earthly hierarchy can justify itself, there is nothing natural about the hierarchies we create, which i think are useless, we create useless webs of hierarchies that are insanely ridiculous, just watch how the state works, its the most ridiculous thing i ever saw, we have more simpler and more HUMANE ways of organizing ourselves without the need for eccentric layers of hierarchy which creates problems. Secondly hierarchy is created by the delegation of power it has nothing to do with charismatic people or even "leaders" because leaders eventually die power structures usually last, delegation of power eventually creates this huge state with useless hierarchies, if people are self conscious about their power they won't hand it to anyone, would give away your civil liberties ?? of course not because these liberties weren't given away by some leaders or by some governments but won throughout history by people like me and you . I can't explain this more simpler for you to understand so i leave you with this documentary. Please if your interested in this watch it, because i can explain this to you in a long ass rant in terms you wouldn't understand this documentary is pretty easy to understand.

These groups of people are considered "cool" and ranked above other groups because they conform to some type of societal standards, which i think you really know especially in schools in the US were the football jocks are considered way cooler then other people. This is not natural, they are considered cool there but here they wouldn't , these are social constructs our society creates. These social behaviors reflect the values and morals your society is based on, if your society is based upon greed,hierarchy, competition,blind submission to authority etc. then you will have such individuals reflecting such values and building such structures around you. I will leave you with this quote byNoam Chomsky, so you can think about it, all of this is connected so THINK ABOUT IT, question your human nature don't limit it.

"Individuals are certainly capable of evil . . . But individuals are capable of all sorts of things. Human nature has lots of ways of realizing itself, humans have lots of capacities and options. Which ones reveal themselves depends to a large extent on the institutional structures. If we had institutions which permitted pathological killers free rein, they'd be running the place. The only way to survive would be to let those elements of your nature manifest themselves.

"If we have institutions which make greed the sole property of human beings and encourage pure greed at the expense of other human emotions and commitments, we're going to have a society based on greed, with all that follows. A different society might be organized in such a way that human feelings and emotions of other sorts, say, solidarity, support, sympathy become dominant. Then you'll have different aspects of human nature and personality revealing themselves."

Republicans, in america at least, hold a pretty strong "keep the government out of my life" worldview, and with that point, I can agree with them strongly. However, the problem I have with them is the fact that they would rather cut important budget plans (like education and roads) rather than tax the rich. And if we had all the money we needed, I'm sure they would keep taxing the poor while they would extend tax cuts on the rich.
The problem with this is obvious. It allows the rich to stay elite.

But wouldn't an anarchist state perpetuate the same system? I don't have a good understanding of Erik's proposed credit-economy, and TBH i'm not sure exactly where menace stands.. but yeah..
I mean capitalism=letting the rich stay rich
communism seems to be a state where you are forced to work, or you starve, and even if you do work your ass off, you're still exactly where you left off the day before (this is an ignorant statement.. i haven't studied much communist history at all. this is just coming off of my basic knowledge of communism)
but then
anarchism seems to want to combine the two in a way? economic freedom + no goverment + no ruling class + no actual money?
i dunno
it all just doesn't make sense to me. it's been a while since i read any economic shit anyways. but do you see why I'm saying that?
it's kinda like saying "yeah we can build this house, and we're going to do it without any bricks or wood!"
don't you need some sort of foundation, even if it's at a fundamental, basic level? like simple groups of people whose job it is to take care of cleaning a certain area, while others have the job of training new workers, and others have the job of protecting us from invaders, and so on and so forth?

this is an oxymoron

with this minor edit i can answer your question more fruitfully, however, the question itself is still vague. how do you suppose in an anarchist society these things would not change? examples and hypothetical situations may help me understand your opinion.

again, oxymoron. even in Marx's view Communism was a stateless, classless society.

that sounds like a pretty accurate definition of capitalism actually, if you ask me. basically, the USSR and other corrupt "communist" regimes are/were, in fact, state capitalism. while i am no proponent of communism myself (i consider myself an individualist anarchist of the socialist variety), i am well studied on communism and propose aspects of communism within my economic ideologies.

communism is based on two basic assumptions:

1. that scarcity no longer actually exists, but instead it is being perpetuated by an elite who are lying to us, trying to convince us that we need them to decide the allocation of resources that aren't actually scarce.

2. that with the conversion to communism, and with work places being turned into worker cooperatives (the way that labor is organized depends on the theorist. some are for voluntary labor, some are for a more strict idea. all, however, involve free association), people will labor without hopes of a labor based reward and resources will be so abundant and/or people will curb their consumption to the point that scarcity will no longer exist, and so people may be given resources according to their need.

anarchism is a broad term. some forms of anarchism, such as my ideas, Proudhon's mutualism, and even Bakunin's collectivism, propose some form of money. communism and some of the more primitivist ideologies wish to abolish money. some collectivists claim to call for the abolition of money, but instead they simply redefine money so that the form of money they use is not called that.

humanity has been organizing itself into societies for over 10,000 years now. though forms of money have existed in isolated systems here and there, money didn't become commonplace in most societies until about 300 years ago, and yet the occupants of these societies still built pyramids, adobe mud huts, and later in history, but still prior to the introduction of currency, houses, paved roads, etc. again, i am no proponent of communism, but the idea that you cannot build a society without some form of money is contrary to history.

all this can be handled through the people directly, and we have history as evidence of this.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

get the fuck out with that shit man.

erik, i just noticed your responses. my bad.

by state, i didn't mean state as in government. by state, i meant a "state of being". so i guess the correct terminolgy would be "a state of anarchy" rather than "a state of anarchism".

shit imma reply to the rest of the convo tomorrow, i have some shit to read and i'm tired as hell after being outside all day