Laid Off

[Marxist]

I already know progressive labor laws are hated by capitalists, and the initial cost wouldn't destroy the capitalists, they're just afraid of profit. Lift millions out of poverty? Yeah, to what exactly, unsafe working conditions where they are essentially still in poverty, wage slaves... I refer you to the articles in my signature for more on this, but moving on.

Except we have seen quite plainly that initial costs of such labor laws have prevented India's manufacturing market from taking off relative to other states. The result? India's unskilled workers remain impoverished and without labor benefits. Such laws can't really precede development, they have to come after it has started otherwise they represent large cost barriers and the market simply doesn't grow, and that doesn't benefit anyone. You remind me a bit of Robert Mugabe. Someone who would sit at the head of a crumbling economy that you destroyed all the while blaming some sort of elusive capitalist conspiracy.

It could have taken off just fine, but the capitalist greed is infinite. Oh, and when they get the benefits, the exploitive labor shifts again. Yeah, a nonexistent system destroyed the economy, tell me more about the Great Depression and 2008

"It could have" "if only" these are nice sayings and moral soapbox speeches on your part, but the simple fact is that in India they turned out to be prohibitive and for all of your desire to help people, they did the exact opposite and relegated them to rural poverty. Your system is only of value if it actually works in the real world.

I refer you to my readings on feudalism in my signature to see why your point is idiotic.

If you want to make an argument based on it then make it. Telling people to read a bunch of stuff in your signature isn't helpful to anyone nor does it further discourse in any way. I might as well tell you to go get an advanced degree in economic theory and then come back and tell me how Anarcho-Communism wouldn't be crushed under the weight of pervasive free rider problems.

The same way the current system doesn't collapse, other people and security.

You capitalists are profoundly deluded. Your economic system is bad for these reasons:

• A land baron deserves all of his great wealth because of the great risk involved in his job. He has to manage an entire region full of serfs and direct the entire economic process. If he fails, there would be total disarray, but since he has not then this system is clearly justified. In exchange the serfs keep some of the food they produce and a hovel. Everybody gains!
  
  
• Feudalism is a part of human nature. Like a child needs a parent, humans need a baron to control the land while the serfs work the land. It represents an orderly and stable system based upon our real human nature. If we gave this land away to capitalists then serfs would have to wander and find employment and their own new parent. There would be no incentive to work from all this chaos in economic society.
  
  
• Capitalism and liberal democracy sound nice in theory but can only fail in practice. Have you not heard of the Reign of Terror? Every time capitalism is put into practice it ends up either failing or surviving but producing misery and death.
  
  
• Feudalism has produced wonders for society and should be celebrated rather than attacked. All your pitchforks, swords, daggers, armor, and horses you own - that was created by the wonder of feudalism. A serf is better off now than they ever were in history through the growing standard of living feudalism provides.
  
  
• Instead of ending feudalism, it would be smarter to reform and better it. We should concentrate on increasing the amount of grain a serf is allowed to keep while still respecting the hard work, wisdom, and intelligence a baron possesses that entitles them to their riches.
  

I urge you to reconsider your position. It is just a phase in your youth and you'll see how quickly you'll abandon it.

Long live the King!

 

[Marxist]

It is a strawman on his part because it is an assumption that, through our dislike of what he is proposing he is assuming that we must be supportive of anarcho-capitalistic ideologies, which most "capitalists" aren't. I would also be curious to see how, through his model and without a government through which a monopoly on force could be present, he would be able to guarantee that his model of anarcho-communism wouldn't devolve into exactly the kind of state that we see in southern Somalia.

Yeah ... But he could skip all the bad stuff associated with his ideas if he were to actually do it here in the States in a community tailored to the design.
They benefit from the freedoms and security our society provides ... And get to establish and run their own communities by their principles.

Again ... It is the difference associated with actually accomplishing something.
All it takes is the effort necessary to achieve the basic requirements ... And the courage to actually do something.

.

Modern day worker coops, territories In Spain during the revolution... I'll link readings if you want.

Please do, I'm always up for economic analysis. One question though: why don't they exist anymore in Spain?

Violence against them.
Free Territory - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Revolutionary Catalonia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
List of worker cooperatives - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So in other words, their society under-produced a public good (security) and was destroyed due to a basic free rider problem.

No, they had security, they were overwhelmed, Jesus Christ.

Do you have data on them?

Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[BlackSand]

Yeah, you obviously know anything about me.

All I know is what you support and that you lack what it takes to act on it.
Everything else is just an assumption as to the possibilities of why you choose to fail at satisfying your desires o achieve a societal equivalent of your ideas.

No one is stopping you but you.

.

 

[Marxist]

It is a strawman on his part because it is an assumption that, through our dislike of what he is proposing he is assuming that we must be supportive of anarcho-capitalistic ideologies, which most "capitalists" aren't. I would also be curious to see how, through his model and without a government through which a monopoly on force could be present, he would be able to guarantee that his model of anarcho-communism wouldn't devolve into exactly the kind of state that we see in southern Somalia.

Yeah ... But he could skip all the bad stuff associated with his ideas if he were to actually do it here in the States in a community tailored to the design.
They benefit from the freedoms and security our society provides ... And get to establish and run their own communities by their principles.

Again ... It is the difference associated with actually accomplishing something.
All it takes is the effort necessary to achieve the basic requirements ... And the courage to actually do something.

.

Modern day worker coops, territories In Spain during the revolution... I'll link readings if you want.

Please do, I'm always up for economic analysis. One question though: why don't they exist anymore in Spain?

Violence against them.
Free Territory - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Revolutionary Catalonia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
List of worker cooperatives - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So in other words, their society under-produced a public good (security) and was destroyed due to a basic free rider problem.

No, they had security, they were overwhelmed, Jesus Christ.

Do you have data on them? It is also worth noting that the simple fact that they had some security doesn't negate the issue of the underproduction of security. Public goods tend to be underproduced without government structures because of the free rider problem: something which you have ignored about a half dozen times now in our discussion.

The free rider problem exists under capitalism as well, and you fail to realize structures would still exist, just not in the way you think.

 

[Marxist]

Yeah, you obviously know anything about me.

All I know is what you support and that you lack what it takes to act on it.
Everything else is just an assumption as to the possibilities of why you choose to fail at satisfying your desires o achieve a societal equivalent of your ideas.

No one is stopping you but you.

.

Keep ranting about my life.

 

[Osomir]

Except we have seen quite plainly that initial costs of such labor laws have prevented India's manufacturing market from taking off relative to other states. The result? India's unskilled workers remain impoverished and without labor benefits. Such laws can't really precede development, they have to come after it has started otherwise they represent large cost barriers and the market simply doesn't grow, and that doesn't benefit anyone. You remind me a bit of Robert Mugabe. Someone who would sit at the head of a crumbling economy that you destroyed all the while blaming some sort of elusive capitalist conspiracy.

It could have taken off just fine, but the capitalist greed is infinite. Oh, and when they get the benefits, the exploitive labor shifts again. Yeah, a nonexistent system destroyed the economy, tell me more about the Great Depression and 2008

"It could have" "if only" these are nice sayings and moral soapbox speeches on your part, but the simple fact is that in India they turned out to be prohibitive and for all of your desire to help people, they did the exact opposite and relegated them to rural poverty. Your system is only of value if it actually works in the real world.

I refer you to my readings on feudalism in my signature to see why your point is idiotic.

If you want to make an argument based on it then make it. Telling people to read a bunch of stuff in your signature isn't helpful to anyone nor does it further discourse in any way. I might as well tell you to go get an advanced degree in economic theory and then come back and tell me how Anarcho-Communism wouldn't be crushed under the weight of pervasive free rider problems.

The same way the current system doesn't collapse, other people and security.

That doesn't make much sense seeing as how the current system is completely different from the one you are espousing. The current system has a centralized government that levies taxes and enforces regulations and can control for externalities. Take the government away and that regulating capability as well as the base monopoly on force which promotes security within a given space all go away with it. Shrugging off these very real problems while simply saying "it wouldn't be a problem" without offering up why it wouldn't be a problem doesn't really make sense to me.

 

[Marxist]

It could have taken off just fine, but the capitalist greed is infinite. Oh, and when they get the benefits, the exploitive labor shifts again. Yeah, a nonexistent system destroyed the economy, tell me more about the Great Depression and 2008

"It could have" "if only" these are nice sayings and moral soapbox speeches on your part, but the simple fact is that in India they turned out to be prohibitive and for all of your desire to help people, they did the exact opposite and relegated them to rural poverty. Your system is only of value if it actually works in the real world.

I refer you to my readings on feudalism in my signature to see why your point is idiotic.

If you want to make an argument based on it then make it. Telling people to read a bunch of stuff in your signature isn't helpful to anyone nor does it further discourse in any way. I might as well tell you to go get an advanced degree in economic theory and then come back and tell me how Anarcho-Communism wouldn't be crushed under the weight of pervasive free rider problems.

The same way the current system doesn't collapse, other people and security.

That doesn't make much sense seeing as how the current system is completely different from the one you are espousing. The current system has a centralized government that levies taxes and enforces regulations and can control for externalities. Take the government away and that regulating capability as well as the base monopoly on force which promotes security within a given space all go away with it. Shrugging off these very real problems while simply saying "it wouldn't be a problem" without offering up why it wouldn't be a problem doesn't really make sense to me.

Anarchist societies existed with strong trade unions, and the people weren't stupid enough to let murder happen.. Yeah, it wasn't a problem In the examples I've given, sorry.

 

[Osomir]

It is a strawman on his part because it is an assumption that, through our dislike of what he is proposing he is assuming that we must be supportive of anarcho-capitalistic ideologies, which most "capitalists" aren't. I would also be curious to see how, through his model and without a government through which a monopoly on force could be present, he would be able to guarantee that his model of anarcho-communism wouldn't devolve into exactly the kind of state that we see in southern Somalia.

Yeah ... But he could skip all the bad stuff associated with his ideas if he were to actually do it here in the States in a community tailored to the design.
They benefit from the freedoms and security our society provides ... And get to establish and run their own communities by their principles.

Again ... It is the difference associated with actually accomplishing something.
All it takes is the effort necessary to achieve the basic requirements ... And the courage to actually do something.

.

Please do, I'm always up for economic analysis. One question though: why don't they exist anymore in Spain?

Violence against them.
Free Territory - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Revolutionary Catalonia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
List of worker cooperatives - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So in other words, their society under-produced a public good (security) and was destroyed due to a basic free rider problem.

No, they had security, they were overwhelmed, Jesus Christ.

Do you have data on them? It is also worth noting that the simple fact that they had some security doesn't negate the issue of the underproduction of security. Public goods tend to be underproduced without government structures because of the free rider problem: something which you have ignored about a half dozen times now in our discussion.

The free rider problem exists under capitalism as well, and you fail to realize structures would still exist, just not in the way you think.

It absolutely does. The difference is that we have evolved governance and regulatory structures that address it in critical areas through taxation, government provision, subsidization, etc. I'll give you an example. In a large city in India there was a trash collection service that existed and depended on people paying it for its services. Some did, and it went along fine until people realized that they could just throw their garbage into an apartment dumpster without contributing to the payment of the trash company and just rely on the fact that someone else would pay them. They became free riders. This eventually snowballed until the trash collection system collapsed and the government was forced to step in tax people directly for the service and then provide it themselves.

 

[Osomir]

"It could have" "if only" these are nice sayings and moral soapbox speeches on your part, but the simple fact is that in India they turned out to be prohibitive and for all of your desire to help people, they did the exact opposite and relegated them to rural poverty. Your system is only of value if it actually works in the real world.

I refer you to my readings on feudalism in my signature to see why your point is idiotic.

If you want to make an argument based on it then make it. Telling people to read a bunch of stuff in your signature isn't helpful to anyone nor does it further discourse in any way. I might as well tell you to go get an advanced degree in economic theory and then come back and tell me how Anarcho-Communism wouldn't be crushed under the weight of pervasive free rider problems.

The same way the current system doesn't collapse, other people and security.

That doesn't make much sense seeing as how the current system is completely different from the one you are espousing. The current system has a centralized government that levies taxes and enforces regulations and can control for externalities. Take the government away and that regulating capability as well as the base monopoly on force which promotes security within a given space all go away with it. Shrugging off these very real problems while simply saying "it wouldn't be a problem" without offering up why it wouldn't be a problem doesn't really make sense to me.

Anarchist societies existed with strong trade unions, and the people weren't stupid enough to let murder happen.. Yeah, it wasn't a problem In the examples I've given, sorry.

Not a problem? Based on what supporting evidence? What data are you basing that assertion on? We have literally seen this problems occur on a daily basis throughout the world. We especially see it in communes and in anarchist societies.

 

[Marxist]

I refer you to my readings on feudalism in my signature to see why your point is idiotic.

If you want to make an argument based on it then make it. Telling people to read a bunch of stuff in your signature isn't helpful to anyone nor does it further discourse in any way. I might as well tell you to go get an advanced degree in economic theory and then come back and tell me how Anarcho-Communism wouldn't be crushed under the weight of pervasive free rider problems.

The same way the current system doesn't collapse, other people and security.

That doesn't make much sense seeing as how the current system is completely different from the one you are espousing. The current system has a centralized government that levies taxes and enforces regulations and can control for externalities. Take the government away and that regulating capability as well as the base monopoly on force which promotes security within a given space all go away with it. Shrugging off these very real problems while simply saying "it wouldn't be a problem" without offering up why it wouldn't be a problem doesn't really make sense to me.

Anarchist societies existed with strong trade unions, and the people weren't stupid enough to let murder happen.. Yeah, it wasn't a problem In the examples I've given, sorry.

Not a problem? Based on what supporting evidence? What data are you basing that assertion on? We have literally seen this problems occur on a daily basis throughout the world. We especially see it in communes and in anarchist societies.

Based on how long they survived against a massively superior force and that the people were still chugging on. I can't claim anything is perfect, everything has problems, but it's certainly an improvement.

 

[BlackSand]

Keep ranting about my life.

I am not ranting ... You are the only one ranting anything or complaining about your opportunities or lack thereof.
Your rant against capitalism is not of my making ... You cannot blame me for your failures to act on your ambitions.
Not my fault you don't achieve your goals ... Nothing you post to me will help you get there.

If you feel that it is an incorrect assumption on my part ... You are free to exercise any attempt to indicate where it is wrong instead of throwing more useless ideas out there.

.

 

[Marxist]

It is a strawman on his part because it is an assumption that, through our dislike of what he is proposing he is assuming that we must be supportive of anarcho-capitalistic ideologies, which most "capitalists" aren't. I would also be curious to see how, through his model and without a government through which a monopoly on force could be present, he would be able to guarantee that his model of anarcho-communism wouldn't devolve into exactly the kind of state that we see in southern Somalia.

Yeah ... But he could skip all the bad stuff associated with his ideas if he were to actually do it here in the States in a community tailored to the design.
They benefit from the freedoms and security our society provides ... And get to establish and run their own communities by their principles.

Again ... It is the difference associated with actually accomplishing something.
All it takes is the effort necessary to achieve the basic requirements ... And the courage to actually do something.

.

Violence against them.
Free Territory - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Revolutionary Catalonia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
List of worker cooperatives - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So in other words, their society under-produced a public good (security) and was destroyed due to a basic free rider problem.

No, they had security, they were overwhelmed, Jesus Christ.

Do you have data on them? It is also worth noting that the simple fact that they had some security doesn't negate the issue of the underproduction of security. Public goods tend to be underproduced without government structures because of the free rider problem: something which you have ignored about a half dozen times now in our discussion.

The free rider problem exists under capitalism as well, and you fail to realize structures would still exist, just not in the way you think.

It absolutely does. The difference is that we have evolved governance and regulatory structures that address it in critical areas through taxation, government provision, subsidization, etc. I'll give you an example. In a large city in India there was a trash collection service that existed and depended on people paying it for its services. Some did, and it went along fine until people realized that they could just throw their garbage into an apartment dumpster without contributing to the payment of the trash company and just rely on the fact that someone else would pay them. They became free riders. This eventually snowballed until the trash collection system collapsed and the government was forced to step in tax people directly for the service and then provide it themselves.

And you assume that unions or a security force comprised of the people/democracy wouldn't exist. Yeah, nothing is perfect, but you assume people are stupid when the system worked fine.

 

[Marxist]

Keep ranting about my life.

I am not ranting ... You are the only one ranting anything or complaining about your opportunities or lack thereof.
Your rant against capitalism is of my making ... You cannot blame me for your failures to act on your ambitions.
Not my fault you don't achieve your goals ... Nothing you post to me will help you get there.

If you feel that it is an incorrect assumption on my part ... You are free to exercise any attempt to indicate where it is wrong instead of throwing more useless ideas out there.

.

I already have what I need in a capitalist society, I live a decent life and have nothing to complain about there, you're wrong.

 

[Osomir]

If you want to make an argument based on it then make it. Telling people to read a bunch of stuff in your signature isn't helpful to anyone nor does it further discourse in any way. I might as well tell you to go get an advanced degree in economic theory and then come back and tell me how Anarcho-Communism wouldn't be crushed under the weight of pervasive free rider problems.

The same way the current system doesn't collapse, other people and security.

That doesn't make much sense seeing as how the current system is completely different from the one you are espousing. The current system has a centralized government that levies taxes and enforces regulations and can control for externalities. Take the government away and that regulating capability as well as the base monopoly on force which promotes security within a given space all go away with it. Shrugging off these very real problems while simply saying "it wouldn't be a problem" without offering up why it wouldn't be a problem doesn't really make sense to me.

Anarchist societies existed with strong trade unions, and the people weren't stupid enough to let murder happen.. Yeah, it wasn't a problem In the examples I've given, sorry.

Not a problem? Based on what supporting evidence? What data are you basing that assertion on? We have literally seen this problems occur on a daily basis throughout the world. We especially see it in communes and in anarchist societies.

Based on how long they survived against a massively superior force and that the people were still chugging on. I can't claim anything is perfect, everything has problems, but it's certainly an improvement.

So far you haven't given me any data on these people through which an honest analysis of how well they were doing can be made. So I ask again, what are you basing your assertion that these were successes that should be emulated beyond a base affinity for your anarcho-communist ideology? Why should these examples convince someone like me who isn't an anarcho-communist that anarcho-communism is a good way to go?

 

[Osomir]

Yeah ... But he could skip all the bad stuff associated with his ideas if he were to actually do it here in the States in a community tailored to the design.
They benefit from the freedoms and security our society provides ... And get to establish and run their own communities by their principles.

Again ... It is the difference associated with actually accomplishing something.
All it takes is the effort necessary to achieve the basic requirements ... And the courage to actually do something.

.

So in other words, their society under-produced a public good (security) and was destroyed due to a basic free rider problem.

No, they had security, they were overwhelmed, Jesus Christ.

Do you have data on them? It is also worth noting that the simple fact that they had some security doesn't negate the issue of the underproduction of security. Public goods tend to be underproduced without government structures because of the free rider problem: something which you have ignored about a half dozen times now in our discussion.

The free rider problem exists under capitalism as well, and you fail to realize structures would still exist, just not in the way you think.

It absolutely does. The difference is that we have evolved governance and regulatory structures that address it in critical areas through taxation, government provision, subsidization, etc. I'll give you an example. In a large city in India there was a trash collection service that existed and depended on people paying it for its services. Some did, and it went along fine until people realized that they could just throw their garbage into an apartment dumpster without contributing to the payment of the trash company and just rely on the fact that someone else would pay them. They became free riders. This eventually snowballed until the trash collection system collapsed and the government was forced to step in tax people directly for the service and then provide it themselves.

And you assume that unions or a security force comprised of the people/democracy wouldn't exist. Yeah, nothing is perfect, but you assume people are stupid when the system worked fine.

Not at all: once again a security force can exist and at the same time be massively underproduced relative to societal needs. that is the nature of what a free rider problem does to public goods such as security - it causes under production of them. Also, what is to prevent trade unions and security forces from accumulating a monopoly on force and install themselves as a defacto controling government? What's there to prevent the rise of warlords? Without a monopoly on force force is left with the ability to concentrate into the hands of whoever can concentrate it. I'm not too eager to live in a society that hasn't undergone that process yet. Talk about high risk.

 

[BlackSand]

I already have what I need in a capitalist society, I live a decent life and have nothing to complain about there, you're wrong.

Have you achieved your goals at establishing and experiencing this wonderful society you promote?
Have you escaped the Capitalistic State of oppression to fully enjoy the proceeds of your labor in a community or society that shares your ideas?

If you support a stateless, labor driven society ... Then why aren't you doing that?
All I want you do is progress towards achieving your goals ... Provide for yourself and your family ... And enjoy the fruits of your labor to the fullest of your abilities.

.

 

[Marxist]

The same way the current system doesn't collapse, other people and security.

That doesn't make much sense seeing as how the current system is completely different from the one you are espousing. The current system has a centralized government that levies taxes and enforces regulations and can control for externalities. Take the government away and that regulating capability as well as the base monopoly on force which promotes security within a given space all go away with it. Shrugging off these very real problems while simply saying "it wouldn't be a problem" without offering up why it wouldn't be a problem doesn't really make sense to me.

Anarchist societies existed with strong trade unions, and the people weren't stupid enough to let murder happen.. Yeah, it wasn't a problem In the examples I've given, sorry.

Not a problem? Based on what supporting evidence? What data are you basing that assertion on? We have literally seen this problems occur on a daily basis throughout the world. We especially see it in communes and in anarchist societies.

Based on how long they survived against a massively superior force and that the people were still chugging on. I can't claim anything is perfect, everything has problems, but it's certainly an improvement.

So far you haven't given me any data on these people through which an honest analysis of how well they were doing can be made. So I ask again, what are you basing your assertion that these were successes that should be emulated beyond a base affinity for your anarcho-communist ideology. Why should these examples convince someone like me who isn't an anarcho-communist that anarcho-communism is a good way to go?

Yes I have, you just didn't want to look deeper into it, but none the less, I'll help you out.

The Free Territory (Ukrainian: Вільна територія vilna terytoriya; Russian: свободная территория svobodnaya territoriya) or Makhnovia (МахновщинаMakhnovshchyna) was an attempt to form a stateless anarchist[1] society during the Ukrainian Revolution. It existed from 1918 to 1921, during which time "free soviets" and libertarian communes[2] operated under the protection of Nestor Makhno's Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army. The population of the area was around seven million.[3]

The territory was occupied by WhiteRussian forces under Anton Denikin and a temporary government of Southern Russiaformed, but, by 1920, Denikin's forces had been driven out of the area by the Red Army in cooperation with Makhno's forces, whose units were conducting guerrilla warfare behind Denikin's lines.

As the Free Territory was organized along anarchist lines, references to "control" and "government" are highly contentious. For example, the Makhnovists, often cited as a form of government (with Nestor Makhno being their leader), played a purely military role, with Makhno himself being little more than a military strategist and advisor.[4]
7 million people... With constant attacks against them, think about that.
Keep in mind I also follow anarchist syndicalism to help achieve anarchist communism.
Anarcho-syndicalism (also referred to as revolutionary syndicalism[1]) is a theory of anarchism which views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as a method for workers in capitalist society to gain control of an economy and, with that control, influence broader society. Syndicalists consider their economic theories a strategy for facilitating worker self-activity and as an alternative co-operative economic system with democratic values and production centered on meeting human needs.
From November 1918 to June 1919, the Makhnovists established an anarchist society run by peasants and workers in Ukraine. The territory under their control stretched approximately between Berdyansk, Donetsk, Alexandrovsk (later known as Zaporizhia), and Yekaterinoslav, (Sicheslav, later Dnipropetrovsk). According to Makhno, "The agricultural majority of these villages was composed of peasants, one would understand at the same time both peasants and workers. They were founded first of all on equality and solidarity of its members. Everyone, men and women, worked together with a perfect conscience that they should work on fields or that they should be used in housework... The work program was established in meetings in which everyone participated. Then they knew exactly what they had to do". (Makhno, Russian Revolution in Ukraine, 1936).

According to the leaders of the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine (RIAU), society was reorganized according to anarchist values, which lead Makhnovists to formalize the policy of free communities as the highest form of social justice. Education followed the principles of Francesc Ferrer, and the economy was based on free exchange between rural and urban communities, from crops and cattle to manufactured products, according to the theories of Peter Kropotkin.

The Makhnovists said they supported "free worker-peasant soviets"[6] and opposed the central government. Makhno called the Bolsheviks dictators and opposed the "Cheka [secret police]... and similar compulsory authoritative and disciplinary institutions". He called for "[f]reedom of speech, press, assembly, unions and the like".[6] The Makhniovists called various congresses of soviets, in which all political parties and groups - including Bolsheviks - were permitted to participate, to the extent that members of these parties were elected delegates from worker, peasant or militia councils. By contrast, the Bolshevik territory, after June 1918, no non-Bolsheviks were permitted to participate in any national soviets and most local ones,[7] the decisions of which were also all subject to Bolshevik party tutelage and veto.

A declaration stated that Makhnovist revolutionaries were forbidden to participate in the Cheka, and all party-run militias and party police forces (including Cheka-like secret police organizations) were to be outlawed in Makhnovist territory.[8][9] Historian Heather-Noël Schwartz comments that "Makhno would not countenance organizations that sought to impose political authority, and he accordingly dissolved the Bolshevik revolutionary committees".[10][11] The Bolsheviks, however, accused him of having two secret police forces operating under him.[12]

The Bolsheviks began their formal efforts to disempower Makhno on 4 June 1919 with Trotsky's Order No. 1824, which forbade electing a congress and attempted to discredit Makhno by stating: "The Makhno brigade has constantly retreated before the White Guards, owing to the incapacity, criminal tendencies, and the treachery of its leaders."[5]
Makhnovists The Russian Revolution
Lots more..

 

[Marxist]

No, they had security, they were overwhelmed, Jesus Christ.

Do you have data on them? It is also worth noting that the simple fact that they had some security doesn't negate the issue of the underproduction of security. Public goods tend to be underproduced without government structures because of the free rider problem: something which you have ignored about a half dozen times now in our discussion.

The free rider problem exists under capitalism as well, and you fail to realize structures would still exist, just not in the way you think.

It absolutely does. The difference is that we have evolved governance and regulatory structures that address it in critical areas through taxation, government provision, subsidization, etc. I'll give you an example. In a large city in India there was a trash collection service that existed and depended on people paying it for its services. Some did, and it went along fine until people realized that they could just throw their garbage into an apartment dumpster without contributing to the payment of the trash company and just rely on the fact that someone else would pay them. They became free riders. This eventually snowballed until the trash collection system collapsed and the government was forced to step in tax people directly for the service and then provide it themselves.

And you assume that unions or a security force comprised of the people/democracy wouldn't exist. Yeah, nothing is perfect, but you assume people are stupid when the system worked fine.

Not at all: once again a security force can exist and at the same time be massively underproduced relative to societal needs. that is the nature of what a free rider problem does to public goods such as security - it causes under production of them. Also, what is to prevent trade unions and security forces from accumulating a monopoly on force and install themselves as a defacto controling government? What's there to prevent the rise of warlords? Without a monopoly on force force is left with the ability to concentrate into the hands of whoever can concentrate it. I'm not too eager to live in a society that hasn't undergone that process yet. Talk about high risk.

What is to prevent the current states from taking... Oh wait. The problem with your assessment is that the common people truly have a massive say in everything.

 

[Marxist]

I already have what I need in a capitalist society, I live a decent life and have nothing to complain about there, you're wrong.

Have you achieved your goals at establishing and experiencing this wonderful society you promote?
Have you escaped the Capitalistic State of oppression to fully enjoy the proceeds of your labor in a community or society that shares your ideas?

If you support a stateless, labor driven society ... Then why aren't you doing that?
All I want you do is progress towards achieving your goals ... Provide for yourself and your family ... And enjoy the fruits of your labor to the fullest of your abilities.

.

Oh yeah, I can just up and leave my family to establish a stateless society. It's clearly that easy.

 

[Osomir]

Do you have data on them? It is also worth noting that the simple fact that they had some security doesn't negate the issue of the underproduction of security. Public goods tend to be underproduced without government structures because of the free rider problem: something which you have ignored about a half dozen times now in our discussion.

The free rider problem exists under capitalism as well, and you fail to realize structures would still exist, just not in the way you think.

It absolutely does. The difference is that we have evolved governance and regulatory structures that address it in critical areas through taxation, government provision, subsidization, etc. I'll give you an example. In a large city in India there was a trash collection service that existed and depended on people paying it for its services. Some did, and it went along fine until people realized that they could just throw their garbage into an apartment dumpster without contributing to the payment of the trash company and just rely on the fact that someone else would pay them. They became free riders. This eventually snowballed until the trash collection system collapsed and the government was forced to step in tax people directly for the service and then provide it themselves.

And you assume that unions or a security force comprised of the people/democracy wouldn't exist. Yeah, nothing is perfect, but you assume people are stupid when the system worked fine.

Not at all: once again a security force can exist and at the same time be massively underproduced relative to societal needs. that is the nature of what a free rider problem does to public goods such as security - it causes under production of them. Also, what is to prevent trade unions and security forces from accumulating a monopoly on force and install themselves as a defacto controling government? What's there to prevent the rise of warlords? Without a monopoly on force force is left with the ability to concentrate into the hands of whoever can concentrate it. I'm not too eager to live in a society that hasn't undergone that process yet. Talk about high risk.

What is to prevent the current states from taking... Oh wait. The problem with your assessment is that the common people truly have a massive say in everything.

So in other words nothing. You are merely shrugging off a huge problem as a non-issue because it is inconvenient to you. The people who you would advocate for deserve better than that.