By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - What Are Your Political Views?

VGPolyglot on 27 March 2017
numberwang said:
VGPolyglot said:

It doesn't need a state to do that. The people would have to take control of the workplace and it make democratic, which by then it would make the state redundant. I do support a democratic system, it's just that I support direct democracy instead of representative democracy.

If you introduce the democratic principle (mayority decisions) there will be no more anarchy because all people have to follow majority decisions.

If 51% decide that alcohol is forbidden, will the remaining 49% have to follow that law in your example?

They wouldn't make rules on self-inflicting things like alcohol, they'd make rules based on the economy, as the workplace would be democratically run.



Around the Network
VGPolyglot on 27 March 2017
Miguel_Zorro said:
VGPolyglot said:

Anarchy doesn't mean no rules, it means no hierarchy or unjustified authority, with relations being handled in a horizontal, bottom-top manner. Socialism also does not require state power over individuals. There are no example of an anarcho-communist state, because it is by definition stateless. However, there were anarchist movements in Spain and Ukraine before they were overrun by Franco's army and the Soviet Union, respectively.

I don't think anarcho-communism could work on a state level because of the free-rider problem.  You need to have a very flattering view of human nature, work ethic and mutual interest to assume that a group that large could pull it off.

Perhaps it could work in small communities, where you could exclude those who choose not to contribute, to make it successful.  

It's not meant to work on the state level because there's not meant to be a state in the first place. Also, with automation growing, the idea would be to use technology to do a lot of work so that humans will have to do less. Another reason why many people don't work is because they have no say and no passion in what they do, if they did they'd probably be a lot more willing to work.



numberwang on 27 March 2017

It seems that direct democracy, anarchy and socialism stand in opposition to each other. Anarchists wouldn't want to follow majority decisions and I doubt that the electoral majority would vote for socialism, at least in most developed countries the actual socialist parties are small/nonexistent.

Did you ever read 'Anarchy, State, and Utopia' by Nozick?



PokerJoey on 27 March 2017

Libertarian Socialist. More specifically I'm Anarcho-Syndicalist, Pro-Decentralisation and Economic Mutualist



VGPolyglot on 27 March 2017
Miguel_Zorro said:
VGPolyglot said:

It's not meant to work on the state level because there's not meant to be a state in the first place. Also, with automation growing, the idea would be to use technology to do a lot of work so that humans will have to do less. Another reason why many people don't work is because they have no say and no passion in what they do, if they did they'd probably be a lot more willing to work.

Fair enough.

Who would invent all of the things that lead to automation when there is no incentive to do so?  Is your belief that people would work hard and create things for the sense of accomplishment?

The incentive to do so is that if automation if created humans won't have to do the work (instead what they'll have to do is maintain the machines). My belief is that if people have a say in what happens to the items that they make with their labour, they'll be much committed to doing the work.



Around the Network
VGPolyglot on 27 March 2017
numberwang said:
It seems that direct democracy, anarchy and socialism stand in opposition to each other. Anarchists wouldn't want to follow majority decisions and I doubt that the electoral majority would vote for socialism, at least in most developed countries the actual socialist parties are small/nonexistent.

Did you ever read 'Anarchy, State, and Utopia' by Nozick?

It sounds like you're assuming that anarchists believe that they can reform the system from within. That's not what anarchists believe. I haven't read his book, but from what I gathered from summaries he based his book more against anarcho-capitalism rather than anarcho-communism.



OdinHades on 27 March 2017

I strongly oppose any politics that rely on fear and hate. I also oppose any ideology that puts certain people above others. We are all human, so we should all have the same basic rights. No matter where we come from, what we say, think or believe in.

Also, take from the rich, give it to the poor. No person on earth needs a billion bucks on a bank account. Absolutely no one. I'm all for extreme taxes for the super-rich. Like 100 % tax for anything above a few millions a year.

All in all pretty far on the left.



Official member of VGC's Nintendo family, approved by the one and only RolStoppable. I feel honored.

numberwang on 27 March 2017
PokerJoey said:
Libertarian Socialist. More specifically I'm Anarcho-Syndicalist, Pro-Decentralisation and Economic Mutualist



numberwang on 27 March 2017
VGPolyglot said:
numberwang said:
It seems that direct democracy, anarchy and socialism stand in opposition to each other. Anarchists wouldn't want to follow majority decisions and I doubt that the electoral majority would vote for socialism, at least in most developed countries the actual socialist parties are small/nonexistent.

Did you ever read 'Anarchy, State, and Utopia' by Nozick?

It sounds like you're assuming that anarchists believe that they can reform the system from within. That's not what anarchists believe. I haven't read his book, but from what I gathered from summaries he based his book more against anarcho-capitalism rather than anarcho-communism.

Nozick turns away from factitious political gadgetry of his colleagues and wants to maximize personal liberties of every man, thus a minimal/libertarian state.



VGPolyglot on 27 March 2017
numberwang said:
VGPolyglot said:

It sounds like you're assuming that anarchists believe that they can reform the system from within. That's not what anarchists believe. I haven't read his book, but from what I gathered from summaries he based his book more against anarcho-capitalism rather than anarcho-communism.

Nozick turns away from factitious political gadgetry of his colleagues and wants to maximize personal liberties of every man, thus a minimal/libertarian state.

Which I'd not support, as it still is capitalist. I don't just want to end an authoritarian state, I also want to end an authoritarian bourgeoisie.