Oh good communist propaganda...

Yeah, because Emma Goldman was an communist... Get your fucking facts straight.

He's not the one who posted a quote without context. Taken on face that is communist bullshit which has been used to reify power and central planning in every major totalitarian dictatorship in history.

No, but you replied. And no, anarchists are opposed the state and authority. Including Emma Goldman, this is not communist bullshit.

Goldman:

"Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations.[152]"

"Goldman believed that the economic system of capitalism was incompatible with human liberty. "The only demand that property recognizes," she wrote in Anarchism and Other Essays, "is its own gluttonous appetite for greater wealth, because wealth means power; the power to subdue, to crush, to exploit, the power to enslave, to outrage, to degrade."[158] She also argued that capitalism dehumanized workers, "turning the producer into a mere particle of a machine, with less will and decision than his master of steel and iron."[158]"

How the fuck is someone against the "Shackles of private property" not a fucking communist or at least communistic? Who decides how property is distributed? Bingo! a central planning committee of elites, thats how that shit always has and always will work.

Whether she was well intentioned or not, her logic falls flat and justifies tyranny.

Man, I'm way to tired to explain anarchism to you right but shortly:

If you mean communist as in a person who wants a socialist dictatorship she was NOT an communist.

every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life

This is a socialist idea and anarchism is basically socialism without a state. Private property and capitalism is violent and can not exist in a free society.

Dude, I have been an anarcho-capitalist for years now. I've been into the literature or Mises, Spooner, Bastiat, Rothbard, etc...

The problem with "Socialist anarchy" is pretty simple. HOW THE FUCK DO RESOURCES GET DISTRIBUTED!?

What if I don't want my resources redistributed, what if I like my private farm, what if I like my creek, my gold, my guns, my TV? How are you going to stop me? With force? You are going to take them from me by violence (or the threat of)? Well that sure as shit sounds like a state to me.

You don't know what you are talking about so please just stop.

Please, make the world a better place and STOP calling yourself "anarcho"-capitalist.

Anarchism and capitalism CANNOT be merged as a concept.

You don't know what you are talking about so please just stop.

Please, call yourself "antistate-capitalist" or whatever. Obviously you have no idea what anarchism is about.

Edit: For a lengthy argument about why you can't be an anarchist capitalist: http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/1as5rd/how_does_anarchocapitalism_work/

All I want is for you to explain to me how capitalism is incompatible with anarchy?

I make shoes, you make toasters, I'll trade you a pair of shoes for a toaster and I want theives (such as government, collectivists) to stay out of the process?

Sorry that that isn't anarchy to you. You want to believe that somehow resources will just magically get distributed how they should be and no one will ever want anything more.

Call me a voluntaryist if it makes you feel better.

I think all interactions should be voluntary. You want to go form some co-operative farm, great just don't steal from me in the process.

Again you have a lot of cognitive dissonance going on in that noggin of yours.

All I want is for you to explain to me how capitalism is incompatible with anarchy?

A lot of people have done this before me, a good place to get started are different threads in: http://www.reddit.com/r/anarchy101

A good place to start is here: http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/1aoy2c/anarchy_and_capitalism/

But a short answer is: Because private property is inherently violent.

Sorry that that isn't anarchy to you. You want to believe that somehow resources will just magically get distributed how they should be and no one will ever want anything more.

I don't believe in magic, but I believe in cooperation between free individuals.

Call me a voluntaryist if it makes you feel better.

I'll do that, and so should you.

If you can own your body, you can own property.

What do you do if I don't agree to share my farm with the collective? How do you handle that?

Who decides how property is used if no one owns it? "everyone" can't make decisions.

If you can own your body, you can own property.

You don't own your body, you ARE your body. And there is a difference between consumer goods and property.

What do you do if I don't agree to share my farm with the collective? How do you handle that?

Well, there is no "anarchist" answer. But me personally, I would try to reason with you and if the rest of society is property free you would probably see the advantages and agree. Otherwise force might be involved, because private property is inherently violent it's not unreasonable to use collective force to abolish it.

Exactly how depends on how the community and society is organized at large.

It's not violent until you make it violent. (Who makes that decision by the way? Collectives don't make decisions) I'm minding my own business, living on and improving my land.

The collective (again who is that) comes and initiates force against me. Just because you say private property is violence doesn't make it so.

Well, there is no "anarchist" answer.

This is fundamentally where this brand of anarchism fails and will always fail.

This is fundamentally where this brand of anarchism fails and will always fail.

Nope, because what you are talking about is not anarchism. Well, the anarchist answer is: The people in the community will have to take there own decision. There is no bulletproof blueprint.

It's not violent until you make it violent. (Who makes that decision by the way? Collectives don't make decisions) I'm minding my own business, living on and improving my land.

Well, you can discuss issues as a collective and form consensus.

Just because you say private property is violence doesn't make it so.

Private property is violent because if a few people would own everything there cannot be anarchism. Then will you have capitalism or something worse, because some people OWN the means of production and some don't.

That is why private property is violent, to live you have sell your body to the owners of property.

It's not violent until you make it violent. (Who makes that decision by the way? Collectives don't make decisions) I'm minding my own business, living on and improving my land.

The collective (again who is that) comes on to my property. I explain that they are on my property, and that they have no right to be on it. They explain that they do not recognize property rights. I threaten them with violence if they refuse to acknowledge my claim to the land.

I found the violent principle for you!

Seems like they began violence by coming on the land that I was living on and I improved. I am just using self defense.

How do you propose we divide up property then?

Let the two wolves and one sheep vote on what to have for dinner.

Let the two wolves and one sheep vote on what to have for dinner.

So it's actually ochlo-capitalism you believe in? I see

it was sarcasm.

Let's let people do what they want to do short of force, fraud, and coercion.

Just leave people alone and let them voluntarily exchange.

The thing is that the property/money thing is where the force and coercion creep in, though...

No it isn't.

Just let people keep what they make and the land that they improve upon barring some former contract.

Don't steal, don't coerce, and don't commit violence.

At the very least property is something that society needs to agree upon so we can progress. It is an efficient means of incentivizing people to create goods and services that improve others lives.

Communism is simply legitimized theft where the least productive are rewarded the same as the most productive.

Collectivism.. What the hell do you think Communism is? Seems this particular quote of propaganda works on the ignorant... The quote, collectivism good, individualism bad.. Yeah Communism moron...

If you mean communist as in a person who wants a socialist dictatorship she was NOT an communist.

I just quoted what I said before. Anarchism comes from the socialist movement. You cannot have anarchism without socialism. But you can have socialism without anarchism.

Either way Socialism leads to tyranny...

Nope, anarchism is liberty. Private property and capitalism is tyranny!

Right...No private property means collectivism.... That is communism, you can keep your anarchism... Thanks for no thanks....

Please read the links I posted. Libertarian communism is the best way to organize a society according to me.

How the fuck do resources get distributed!?!?

Do we just have the two wolves and one sheep decide what to have for dinner?

You can keep your socialist central planning to yourself and stay away from my property, thanks.

"central planning"? Exactly how can be experimented with, money could be a way or trading or vouchers. There are a lot of different ways to get resources distributed.

How is that different than capitalism? What we have now is vouchers (not that we have capitalism)

How is anyone incentivized to do anything with no property? Who decides who owns what, who owns the vouchers? Without private property, supply, demand there is no efficient way of distributing resources.

It ends up with central planners deciding which equals an elite class making all the decisions.

With private property you get a situation where some people only have their bodies to sell, what we call wage labor. Some people can even buy up property and means of production where they do not live and that causes the workers who doesn't own property to be in a hierarchical relationship with those who do. This causes the problem we have now, where the person who produces something only gets a part of the value of the product. In the long run this causes the most important reason for a state to exist in the first place, to protect the property owners "rights" from those without property.

It's much more reasonable to manage the property where you live, but if you move, let's say for a year or more, the property is now management less and can be occupied by someone else. All means of production should be collectivized.

Why does someone have to OWN something all the fucking time? People can be organized in communes where everyone has a say in how resources should be distributed. There will of course be a lot of different ways in different communities, but I'm sure it can be worked out. If you look at the Spanish revolution, a lot of different ways to manage resources where tried and experimented with. This will of course be the case anywhere.

I say again, private property causes injustice, it is not sustainable and is inherently violent.

Edit: grammar

You have a choice who you work for, or whether you want to form a commune. I'm not going to stop you. But what if another commune wants your commune? What if I want some of the grain you produced even though I didn't work for it? Who decides?

Furthermore, how do you reward people for expertise, for taking risks, for accurately predicting market demands?

The only other way to do this is central planning and as we have seen it doesn't work

If you don't want to work for someone, don't work for them. But don't steal from people who worked hard and took risks. Your problem is with crony capitalism where the government uses force to entrench certain corporations and grant monopolies so competition can't form.

And you're out of your fucking mind...

Again, please read the links I've posted. There are a lot of very good reasons why anarchism works and is the best way to organize society.

Smash the state and destroy capitalism!

So edgy...

Wow this is completely retarded, and downright dangerous.

You understand that governments trying to gain greater control do the opposite of encouraging individualism?

They encourage collectivism, centralized planning, welfare, nanny state regulations, agenda 21, public indoctrination (schooling), and corporatism.

Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, those are collectivists.

The ruling class rules from on high through central planning.

The founding fathers were individualists.

People have the liberty to make their own decisions as long as it does not involve force, fraud or coercion. No permission needed from the collective.

If it wasn't for corporate welfare and lobbying we would have real capitalism which simply means that people voluntarily exchange with each other on a win win basis, and anyone can enter the market and compete. Not huge barriers to entry put in place by a nanny state. That is not capitalism that is crony capitalism.

Collectives don't have rights, only individuals do.

We have more people on food stamps, and welfare then ever before and all it is doing is breeding a weak publicly schooled population hopelessly dependent on the state and unable to think critically.

Look up fabian socialism, specifically take a look at their logo.

You can shove that quote right between your hammer and sickle.

I see this mindset a lot on /r/conspiracy and it is so frustrating that people who are supposedly so informed are cheering on the instruments of their own destruction.

Wow! All I have the time to say at the moment is that everyone in this thread so far (you, iSpankedamonkey and muffelettadiver) has spectacularly missed the point by 180 degrees.

Emma Goldman was an anarchist, and the quote was explaining how the notion of individualism is really a smokescreen that allows the elite class to do as they wish. Tea Party? Citizens United? These astro-turfed "movements" claim to empower the individual, but their true goals are to remove regulations that attempt to prevent the collective (corporate state) from exploiting the individual. Their goal is to empower individuals, but only elite individuals and individual corporate interests.

To everyone else- anyone who can grasp this should feel free to step in and continue to school these monkeys. Maybe they can still vomit up some of the cool aid.

That wasn't even coherent.

Tea Party? Citizens United? These astro-turfed "moments" claim to empower the individual, but their true goals are to remove regulations that attempt to prevent the collective (corporate state) from exploiting the individual. Their goal is to empower individuals, but only elite individuals and individual corporate interests.

Those don't look like individuals to me, those look like collectives.

Furthermore, I am very worried that you think a corporate state is capable of regulating itself? Bit of a conflict of interest there wouldn't you say?

Why regulate the state at all? If she is an anarchist (as I am) then simply abolish the state and let everyone do what they wish short of force, fraud, and coercion.

I have given you numerous ways that the collective empowers the state, you have yet to give one way that it truly empowers the individual other than some vague idea of a self interested government regulating itself. (Yeah fucking right)

That has worked so well so far.

No need for the snark. You are the one with a fundamental misunderstanding of the history of tyranny. You also seem to have difficulty putting together coherent thoughts (and spelling it would seem).

But let's follow your lead and give the government more power to regulate! Bigger government, less individual volition! Let's protect markets from competition even more and keep the revolving door of crony politics swinging! Onward to anarchy? Wait a minute...

I suggest you take the advice next to my username and look up "Voluntaryism"

I have no idea why you are getting downvoted. Voluntarism (anarchy?) is the only real way things work.

Read my reply to harmreductionsauce to learn about the reason for down votes. Also read the Wiki entry for collectivism - specifically the criticism section. That's where I got the quote, and it is indeed a criticism of collectivism.

Man, I'm way to tired to explain anarchism to you right but shortly:

If you mean communist as in a person who wants a socialist dictatorship she was NOT an communist.

every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life

This is a socialist idea and anarchism is basically socialism without a state. Private property and capitalism is violent and can not exist in a free society.