• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Communisum in our Schools.

Agnapostate said:
Of course, of course! So...by all means, kindly describe non-socialist anarchism in actual detail for us.



I'm not sure what this incoherence means, and I have little interest in finding out. :2wave:
Click to expand...

I'd expect nothing more from you Agie.:lol: You've not let me down yet.:roll:
 
Rationalism just doesn't work on some people...

Does this forum have an ignore feature?
 
Agnapostate said:
Of course, of course! So...by all means, kindly describe non-socialist anarchism in actual detail for us.
Click to expand...

The pioneer West was pretty close, and works as well as an example as your beloved anarchist Spain. Neither endured.

It doesn't take much to imagine an industrialized version.

Of course, the only thing actually required for anarchy is the absence of government. Assuming that yours is the only legitimate construction -- despite the fact that your collective isn't really functionally different from a government anyway -- is the height of arrogance.
 
Alex Libman said:
Rationalism just doesn't work on some people...

Does this forum have an ignore feature?
Click to expand...

All vB forums have an ignore feature (though they're disabled on some), but it's painfully apparent that the irrational one of the two of us is you...let's have a little True Debate and the forum can decide which of us is in the right. :2wave:

Harshaw said:
The pioneer West was pretty close, and works as well as an example as your beloved anarchist Spain. Neither endured.

Of course, the only thing actually required for anarchy is the absence of government. Assuming that yours is the only legitimate construction -- despite the fact that your collective isn't really functionally different from a government anyway -- is the height of arrogance.
Click to expand...

That's completely wrong. Considering the etymological meaning of "anarchy" as "without rulers," the mere elimination of government through the centralized and formal state is not sufficient to establish conditions of anarchy; the elimination of other unjust hierarchies is necessary too, which accounts for the traditional anarchist opposition to the "Unholy Trinity" of church, state, and capitalism. I take it authoritarian hierarchies were not absent in the pioneer West...;)
 
Agnapostate said:
Was that supposed to be a sound reply? I've made the distinctions between private and possessive property rather clear in the past; private property involves a monopoly of control over a productive resource that permits the "owner" to compel others to perform labor in a hierarchical arrangement under him in order to gain access to that resource, whereas possessive property merely involves personal ownership of items that cannot be used for this purpose. A watch is an example of possessive property; a watch factory is an example of private property. The elimination of private property brings with it the elimination of a major source of labor market coercion, and is thus far less authoritarian than the institution of private property itself.
Click to expand...

Since there is no such thing as a self-creating watch, treating the privately owned watch-factory as a way of placing the means of production off-limits is folly.
 
The silenced majority said:
Since there is no such thing as a self-creating watch, treating the privately owned watch-factory as a way of placing the means of production off-limits is folly.
Click to expand...

There aren't, but there are many such things as currently existing watches that personal possession of wouldn't cause harm to others. Private ownership of a major productive resource, however, forms the basis for labor market coercion that I described.
 
Alex Libman said:
Rationalism just doesn't work on some people...

Does this forum have an ignore feature?
Click to expand...

You've your own "ignore" button.:lol:

You have my permission to use it, anytime you wish.:lol:
 
Agnapostate said:
There aren't, but there are many such things as currently existing watches that personal possession of wouldn't cause harm to others. Private ownership of a major productive resource, however, forms the basis for labor market coercion that I described.
Click to expand...

So does every member of the collective make their own watch, or does every member of the collective simultaneously turn every single screw in the watch factory in the watch-making process in order to provide a watch for every member of the collective?

You'd need a really big screw-driver.
 
Agnapostate said:
I've no use for that. I've simply even less use for your inaccurate references to political economic terminology that have no relation to the confiscatory practice that you describe.



Was that supposed to be a sound reply? I've made the distinctions between private and possessive property rather clear in the past; private property involves a monopoly of control over a productive resource that permits the "owner" to compel others to perform labor in a hierarchical arrangement under him in order to gain access to that resource, whereas possessive property merely involves personal ownership of items that cannot be used for this purpose. A watch is an example of possessive property; a watch factory is an example of private property. The elimination of private property brings with it the elimination of a major source of labor market coercion, and is thus far less authoritarian than the institution of private property itself.


I haven't referred to forced collectivism; I've referred to collectivism which involves a reduction of force and coercion through the elimination of private property in the manner that was elaborated upon above. Study up. :2wave:
Click to expand...
Got an example of where this worked?
 
Agnapostate said:
That's completely wrong. Considering the etymological meaning of "anarchy" as "without rulers," the mere elimination of government through the centralized and formal state is not sufficient to establish conditions of anarchy; the elimination of other unjust hierarchies is necessary too, which accounts for the traditional anarchist opposition to the "Unholy Trinity" of church, state, and capitalism. I take it authoritarian hierarchies were not absent in the pioneer West...;)
Click to expand...

That's inane. The very classification of "unjust hierarchy" is as subjective as anything else. "Just" based on what? Your preferences? That's an exercise of authority in and of itself.

The idea that any "collective" can strip you of your private property and prevent you from accumulating more is a hierarchy, too, but for you, it gets a pass because you don't consider it "unjust." But others disagree.

Like the poor folks your revered Catalonians executed for being too bourgeois.
 
The silenced majority said:
So does every member of the collective make their own watch, or does every member of the collective simultaneously turn every single screw in the watch factory in the watch-making process in order to provide a watch for every member of the collective?

You'd need a really big screw-driver.
Click to expand...

The Liberals out here, I'm sure have a big screw-driver.:lol: It's the "Collective" part in which direction to turn it,,,they have a problem.:lol:

Maybe, a Group Hug will help them.:doh
 
The silenced majority said:
So does every member of the collective make their own watch, or does every member of the collective simultaneously turn every single screw in the watch factory in the watch-making process in order to provide a watch for every member of the collective?
Click to expand...

The collectivization of the means of production is intended to facilitate the installment of workers' ownership and management of the labor market and internal firm structure for the purpose of managing productive enterprise...what are you even saying? :doh

American said:
Got an example of where this worked?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've referred to the Spanish Revolution countless times: [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution]Spanish Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Harshaw said:
That's inane. The very classification of "unjust hierarchy" is as subjective as anything else. "Just" based on what? Your preferences? That's an exercise of authority in and of itself.

The idea that any "collective" can strip you of your private property and prevent you from accumulating more is a hierarchy, too, but for you, it gets a pass because you don't consider it "unjust." But others disagree.
Click to expand...

That's why I never claimed that the elimination of all hierarchical influence in all places at all times was a conceivable possibility; I instead referred to their minimization. Just as the police officer's arrest of the violent criminal is forcible but intended to ultimately reduce violence, those forcible expropriations of private property that will have to occur at times are designed to reduce coercion as a whole by eliminating authoritarian control of productive resources and instituting direct democratic control. Or is the overthrow of a monarch for a democracy "authoritarian"?

Harshaw said:
Like the poor folks your revered Catalonians executed for being too bourgeois.
Click to expand...

So you've either been reading Bryan Caplan or you've been reading the Wikipedia article that I wrote? Which is it? Unless you'd like to present some other valid evidence of systematic and widespread execution of innocent middle class civilians by anarchists?
 
Agnapostate said:
That's why I never claimed that the elimination of all hierarchical influence in all places at all times was a conceivable possibility; I instead referred to their minimization. Just as the police officer's arrest of the violent criminal is forcible but intended to ultimately reduce violence, those forcible expropriations of private property that will have to occur at times are designed to reduce coercion as a whole by eliminating authoritarian control of productive resources and instituting direct democratic control. Or is the overthrow of a monarch for a democracy "authoritarian"?
Click to expand...

When you acknowledge that there are acceptable hierarchies, it comes down to which ones you find acceptable. Reasonable minds may and do differ, and reasonable minds don't agree with you.



So you've either been reading Bryan Caplan or you've been reading the Wikipedia article that I wrote? Which is it? Unless you'd like to present some other valid evidence of systematic and widespread execution of innocent middle class civilians by anarchists?
Click to expand...

Did they execute any or didn't they? Didn't say anything about "widespread."

I'd say taking someone's life is the ultimate act of authority and rulership.
 
Harshaw said:
When you acknowledge that there are acceptable hierarchies, it comes down to which ones you find acceptable. Reasonable minds may and do differ, and reasonable minds don't agree with you.
Click to expand...

Always our main focus is the ultimate reduction of authoritarianism as manifested through hierarchies. If some "authoritarianism" is necessary, it is that which is a means to a reduction of authoritarianism of a more severe nature, as with the "force" of violent insurrection against an unjust monarch, for example.

Harshaw said:
Did they execute any or didn't they?
Click to expand...

Yes. Reference to isolated incidents that involved workers and their families taking revenge upon the very bosses that had oppressed and maltreated them for years is not evidence of any general trend of unjust violence associated with anarchist organizational principles, nor is it even sufficient to render the Spanish Revolution non-libertarian in nature, however.
 
Realist1 said:
What kind of twisted thinking are Teachers trying with our kids? "Teaching" them it's "OK" to Steal? :x


Communism In Our Schools | NewsBusters.org


Tonight I had chance to listen to Bruce DuMont's radio show and heard the story of how teachers in one school confiscate all the children's school supplies (and in this case even lunch boxes), put them in a pile, and everyone takes turns coming up and taking what they want, whether the parents like it or not. A guest on the show, Erika Brees, Heartland Regional Director for College Democrats of America, defended this action saying that "it's an important lesson that people learn to do with less so others can have what they need too, and if the parents aren't willing to teach that, I think it's good that the school does." [I paraphrase]

This is nothing more than an introduction to communism. I was shocked. I thought there's no way that this redistribution of personal property really goes on in American school rooms. After a few searches and several calls to teacher friends, I've found this to be more common than I ever would have thought, and of course there is not one media story on the subject to be found.

It's one thing to buy extra supplies so the classroom has the tools it needs to conduct class. It's quite another to steal property from one person... and give it to another.
Click to expand...
I'm going to tell you why this story is bull**** (other than it being hearsay): food allergies. Everywhere you take your kid these days they want to know about food allergies and whatnot. If a district caught a teacher doing this, he'd be out on his ass for him exposing the district to a lawsuit or seven.
 
Realist1 said:
What kind of twisted thinking are Teachers trying with our kids? "Teaching" them it's "OK" to Steal? :x


Communism In Our Schools | NewsBusters.org


Tonight I had chance to listen to Bruce DuMont's radio show and heard the story of how teachers in one school confiscate all the children's school supplies (and in this case even lunch boxes), put them in a pile, and everyone takes turns coming up and taking what they want, whether the parents like it or not. A guest on the show, Erika Brees, Heartland Regional Director for College Democrats of America, defended this action saying that "it's an important lesson that people learn to do with less so others can have what they need too, and if the parents aren't willing to teach that, I think it's good that the school does." [I paraphrase]

This is nothing more than an introduction to communism. I was shocked. I thought there's no way that this redistribution of personal property really goes on in American school rooms. After a few searches and several calls to teacher friends, I've found this to be more common than I ever would have thought, and of course there is not one media story on the subject to be found.

It's one thing to buy extra supplies so the classroom has the tools it needs to conduct class. It's quite another to steal property from one person... and give it to another.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't the title be more like "a couple communists in a school". or something more accurate like that?
 
Realist1 said:
The Term "anarchist", means to me, a creature to be left in the gutter, with its throat cut. From ear to ear. ;)

Prove me wrong.:lol:
Click to expand...
I doubt anyone cares. How about you explain to us what you think "anarchy" means. This should be good.
 
Realist1 said:
What kind of twisted thinking are Teachers trying with our kids? "Teaching" them it's "OK" to Steal? :x


Communism In Our Schools | NewsBusters.org


Tonight I had chance to listen to Bruce DuMont's radio show and heard the story of how teachers in one school confiscate all the children's school supplies (and in this case even lunch boxes), put them in a pile, and everyone takes turns coming up and taking what they want, whether the parents like it or not. A guest on the show, Erika Brees, Heartland Regional Director for College Democrats of America, defended this action saying that "it's an important lesson that people learn to do with less so others can have what they need too, and if the parents aren't willing to teach that, I think it's good that the school does." [I paraphrase]

This is nothing more than an introduction to communism. I was shocked. I thought there's no way that this redistribution of personal property really goes on in American school rooms. After a few searches and several calls to teacher friends, I've found this to be more common than I ever would have thought, and of course there is not one media story on the subject to be found.

It's one thing to buy extra supplies so the classroom has the tools it needs to conduct class. It's quite another to steal property from one person... and give it to another.
Click to expand...


When children earn the money to buy their own school supplies, I'll worry about it.
Until then, some children should not have to go without adequate supplies while another child sits there with the entire contents of the Walmart Back-to-School aisle in his desk, simply because his parents are wealthier and/or nicer than another child's parents.
It's public school, for cripe sake.
 
Agnapostate said:
Maybe they should have publicly funded provisions of adequate supplies instead of confiscating others' possessions, though...
Click to expand...

Children should not have personal "possessions" at school.
School is about learning.
The necessary supplies for learning should be distributed equally, whether the government pays for them with tax dollars or whether the children's parents pay for them out of pocket and then donate them to the school.
 
1069 said:
Children should not have personal "possessions" at school.
School is about learning.
The necessary supplies for learning should be distributed equally, whether the government pays for them with tax dollars or whether the children's parents pay for them out of pocket and then donate them to the school.
Click to expand...

Personal possessions aren't of sufficient significance to dramatically influence that process one way or the other, I'd say...which is what accounts for their status as possessive property rather than the aforementioned private property. If your focus is on the public school system facilitating egalitarianism, we should instead eliminate the hierarchical internal structure of the large majority of classrooms, as it's utilized as a means of conditioning youth who will someday enter the labor market and a similar relationship with employers.
 
Agnapostate said:
Always our main focus is the ultimate reduction of authoritarianism as manifested through hierarchies. If some "authoritarianism" is necessary, it is that which is a means to a reduction of authoritarianism of a more severe nature, as with the "force" of violent insurrection against an unjust monarch, for example.
Click to expand...

Then what I said applies. You're simply choosing the form of "necessary" authority you prefer and calling it the only legitimate one. Others disagree.
 
Realist1 said:
What kind of twisted thinking are Teachers trying with our kids? "Teaching" them it's "OK" to Steal? :x


Communism In Our Schools | NewsBusters.org


Tonight I had chance to listen to Bruce DuMont's radio show and heard the story of how teachers in one school confiscate all the children's school supplies (and in this case even lunch boxes), put them in a pile, and everyone takes turns coming up and taking what they want, whether the parents like it or not. A guest on the show, Erika Brees, Heartland Regional Director for College Democrats of America, defended this action saying that "it's an important lesson that people learn to do with less so others can have what they need too, and if the parents aren't willing to teach that, I think it's good that the school does." [I paraphrase]

This is nothing more than an introduction to communism. I was shocked. I thought there's no way that this redistribution of personal property really goes on in American school rooms. After a few searches and several calls to teacher friends, I've found this to be more common than I ever would have thought, and of course there is not one media story on the subject to be found.

It's one thing to buy extra supplies so the classroom has the tools it needs to conduct class. It's quite another to steal property from one person... and give it to another.
Click to expand...
if TRUE, i think this is inexusable.
 
Harshaw said:
Then what I said applies. You're simply choosing the form of "necessary" authority you prefer and calling it the only legitimate one. Others disagree.
Click to expand...

There are no anarchists who disagree with the optimal goal of minimized hierarchical authority. It's merely a matter of recognizing that social conditions of disorder would eventually permit warlords and powerful figures to exert influence over others, thus constituting an introduction of greater authoritarian hierarchy than we saw under republicanism.
 
This story smells of propoganda and myth.

I doubt seriously that there is any validity to this story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom