The historical basis for "X" Independence

[Josu]

I don't know; is it?

I don't know neither. What I tried to say with this question is that in the same way we can no assume that regional "interests" line up in any coherent way with the geographical distribution of cultural minorities, we can neither assume that region "interest" will line up wiht any kind of distribution. Each case is different and we should not try to generalize.

Kaiserguard isn't the one arguing that sovereignty be constructed as a natural right.

In this case Kaiseguard was no even arguing, he was trying to make nonsense an argument (maybe a wrong argument but at least it was an rgument) by exaggerating so that it becames something absurd. I helped him by making it still more absurd. I am sure he could do better.

In any case, what I defend as natural rigth is self-determination, not sovereignty.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't know neither. What I tried to say with this question is that in the same way we can no assume that regional "interests" line up in any coherent way with the geographical distribution of cultural minorities, we can neither assume that region "interest" will line up wiht any kind of distribution. Each case is different and we should not try to generalize.

So what do "regional interests" have to do with Catalan cultural nationalism?

In this case Kaiseguard was no even arguing, he was trying to make nonsense an argument (maybe a wrong argument but at least it was an rgument) by exaggerating so that it becames something absurd. I helped him by making it still more absurd. I am sure he could do better.

Reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate form of argument. If a particular line of thought contains implicit absurdities, then it suggests that line of thinking is flawed. If you dispute his argument, explain why it's wrong, don't try to help.

In any case, what I defend as natural rigth is self-determination, not sovereignty.

Politically, it amounts to the same thing.

 

[History_Buff]

It must be pointed out that the Central Government blocked the Catalan collectivised industries access to capital and prime resources.

Context Joan. When you say things like this, you have to say when, how, and preferably why. The context is important.

 

[JohannaK]

Say that to Beevor. I read it in his book. Oh, you mean, oh yes. Yeah, excuse me, I don't often use quotes. Even when I should, as was the case then. but if I'm talking about collectivised industries, can you think of any other moment which wasn't 1936-37?

 

[Traitorfish]

I think his point was that the power struggle in question was between the Popular Front government and the CNT-FAI/POUM bloc, rather than between a "Castilian" central government and a "Catalan" regional one.

 

[JohannaK]

I never said "Castillian" and Catalonia was the only region widely affected by this "revolution" with significant industry. On the other hand, the Barcelona May Days were indeed a CNT-FAI/POUM-Central government. The POUM were Marxists, not anarchists, they were "collateral damage", in the sense that the main target were the anarchists, although they were also clearly targeted by the Commies in the government.

 

[Traitorfish]

The point is that conflicts between the CNT and the Popular Front have very little bearing on contemporary conflicts between the Spanish and Catalan governments.

 

[JohannaK]

Oh yes. The fact that I support Catalan independence does not mean that I meant to say that to support Catalan independence. It was an answer to Lord_Baal's "That is not a very good way of managing the economy" or something like that.

 

[Lord Baal]

That's anarchy, not anarchism.

Interesting link to anarcho-syndicalism. Also not anarchy, by the way.

Goalposts shifting much? Before you say "Anarcho-syndicalism is not anarchism," the former is clearly an offshoot of the latter, though obviously also of syndicalism.

Do tell?

You'll mop the floor with me in this debate, as I am quite the rank amateur in this field, no doubt.

Anarcho-syndicalism is neither truly communistic or truly anarchistic. As an offshoot of anarchism it is, by its very nature, revolutionary, yet it stops the revolution before it can truly be completed. Anarcho-syndicalism merely reverses the current primacy of the bourgeoisie over the workers, giving the proletariat the dominant position in society. The emphasis on trade or labour unions is to the detriment of other forces in the society, specifically any forces outside of said unions. So, from the standpoint of both socalism and anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism fails in its primary, revolutionary mission.

The emphasis on labour unions and the working class will also cripple buying power and inter-state trade. Even Rocker said that one of the purposes of anarcho-syndicalism is "[t]o enforce the demands of the producers for the safeguarding and raising of their standard of living." Obviously if the standard of living of producers is rising, the standard of living of those who are NOT producers - which is a bloody big slice of society - will be lowered in comparison. I'm all for giving factory workers a bigger paycheque, and CEOs lower ones, but not at the expense of the middle class. The bourgeoisie are a necessary component of modern societies, and their elimination or even weakening is bound to be detrimental to the state as a whole.

The high emphasis anarcho-syndicalists place on self-determination is also detrimental to the continuation of the state, a necessary organ in society, if only for security. Assuming the best case scenario for anarcho-syndicalism, that being an entire planet of anarcho-syndicalists, you also effectively stifle innovation; anarcho-syndicalism suffers from a lack of any spurs to growth or innovation, just as communism does (there's a very simple word to get at what I'm trying to say here, but I can't wrap my head around it right now) especially regarding new technology. From what I read yesterday, even other anarchists are pointing out the flaws that technological growth is exposing in anarcho-syndicalism.

There's my half-arsed argument. I might be able to do better on a day when I'm not suffering a crippling head-ache and an empty stomach. Even I can see it rambles a bit, and I'm forgetting simple words. I look forward to seeing you tear it apart.

 

[Tahuti]

Anarcho-syndicalism is neither truly communistic or truly anarchistic. As an offshoot of anarchism it is, by its very nature, revolutionary, yet it stops the revolution before it can truly be completed. Anarcho-syndicalism merely reverses the current primacy of the bourgeoisie over the workers, giving the proletariat the dominant position in society. The emphasis on trade or labour unions is to the detriment of other forces in the society, specifically any forces outside of said unions. So, from the standpoint of both socalism and anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism fails in its primary, revolutionary mission.

The emphasis on labour unions and the working class will also cripple buying power and inter-state trade. Even Rocker said that one of the purposes of anarcho-syndicalism is "[t]o enforce the demands of the producers for the safeguarding and raising of their standard of living." Obviously if the standard of living of producers is rising, the standard of living of those who are NOT producers - which is a bloody big slice of society - will be lowered in comparison. I'm all for giving factory workers a bigger paycheque, and CEOs lower ones, but not at the expense of the middle class. The bourgeoisie are a necessary component of modern societies, and their elimination or even weakening is bound to be detrimental to the state as a whole.

The high emphasis anarcho-syndicalists place on self-determination is also detrimental to the continuation of the state, a necessary organ in society, if only for security. Assuming the best case scenario for anarcho-syndicalism, that being an entire planet of anarcho-syndicalists, you also effectively stifle innovation; anarcho-syndicalism suffers from a lack of any spurs to growth or innovation, just as communism does (there's a very simple word to get at what I'm trying to say here, but I can't wrap my head around it right now) especially regarding new technology. From what I read yesterday, even other anarchists are pointing out the flaws that technological growth is exposing in anarcho-syndicalism.

There's my half-arsed argument. I might be able to do better on a day when I'm not suffering a crippling head-ache and an empty stomach. Even I can see it rambles a bit, and I'm forgetting simple words. I look forward to seeing you tear it apart.

Anarcho-Syndicalists seek to abolish the state, so all talk about "detriment to the state" is a little bit redundant to say the least. The basic premise of ansyc is that the workers (i.e. the proletariat) are functionally able to take over the "duties" of bourgeoisie as well. Essentially, proletarians are to act as CEOs and shareholders and vice versa. It seeks to apply democracy in areas where it is totally irrelevant: Property Rights are inherently undemocratic by itself, though Western democracies tolerate it to farreaching degree, despite being able to get rid of it.

However, there good reasons why corporations are not democratic, why the next tech startup in Silicon Valley won't be a democratic workerrun co-operative and why Liberal democracies tolerate private property rights. Economies that are completely ruled by democratic principles which must necessarily abridge private property rights are non-free markets that would inherently suffer from deadweight loss. This is an inherent flaw of both actually planned economies (i.e. moneyless societies) and monopolistic market economies like the USSR. Money may have been invented to keep track of debt, but it still represents a quantum leap in making market transactions as efficient as possible. Likewise, competition represents the lifeblood of avoiding deadweight loss as well. Anarcho-Syndicalism seeks to make the trade union the nucleus of the economy. And that will bring us nothing but deadweight loss.

 

[Josu]

Reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate form of argument. If a particular line of thought contains implicit absurdities, then it suggests that line of thinking is flawed. If you dispute his argument, explain why it's wrong, don't try to help.

Indeed, but it was not reductio ad absurdum, it was a straw man fallacy

 

[Tahuti]

Indeed, but it was not reductio ad absurdum, it was a straw man fallacy

I did not say you were an anarcho-capitalist nor did I attack you as such. I merely compared your reasoning of self-determination to anarcho-capitalism.

 

[Agent327]

Goalposts shifting much? Before you say "Anarcho-syndicalism is not anarchism," the former is clearly an offshoot of the latter, though obviously also of syndicalism.

You're clearly not even following what you are saying: nether anarchism nor anarcho-syndicalism equal anarchy, which is another thing entirely. (Although certain people can't seem to tell the difference.)

At any rate, national self-determination has little to do with any of these terms.

 

[Lord Baal]

Dear god you can be dense sometimes Jeelen. Here, allow me to post our entire conversation, point-by-point.

Anarchism isn't exactly unknown in Catalonia.

(bolding mine)

I'm clearly talking about anarchism here.

That's anarchy, not anarchism.

You claim that Catalonia has experienced anarchy, not anarchism.

Not necessarily.

Here I link you to a Wikipedia page dealing with the anarcho-syndicalistic experiments in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War. Anarcho-syndicalism is an offshoot of anarchism.

Interesting link to anarcho-syndicalism. Also not anarchy, by the way.

(bolding mine)

Here you respond by pointing out that anarcho-syndicalism is not anarchy, which confuses me because at absolutely no point in our conversation have I mentioned anarchy. I was discussing anarchism the whole time. As you yourself pointed out earlier, anarchy and anarchism are different things. So why have you now told me that my post, which was not meant to discuss anarchy, is not discussing anarchy?

Goalposts shifting much? Before you say "Anarcho-syndicalism is not anarchism," the former is clearly an offshoot of the latter, though obviously also of syndicalism.

I point out that our original discussion was not about anarchy, but in fact about anarchism, which anarcho-syndicalism is obviously an offshoot of.

Your response:

You're clearly not even following what you are saying: nether anarchism nor anarcho-syndicalism equal anarchy, which is another thing entirely. (Although certain people can't seem to tell the difference.)

WHAT THE FLYING MONKEY TESTICLE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?! At absolutely no point in our discussion have I even frigging mentioned the word "anarchy." This post, in fact, is the absolute first time I have mentioned the word in this entire thread, unless you're counting the times I quoted you.

I am discussing anarchism. ANARCHISM! ANARCHISM!!! Not frigging anarchy! So either start discussing anarchism, or stop replying with gibberish.

 

[Traitorfish]

Oh yes. The fact that I support Catalan independence does not mean that I meant to say that to support Catalan independence. It was an answer to Lord_Baal's "That is not a very good way of managing the economy" or something like that.

Ah, fair enough! I've just encountered some people trying to crowbar 19377 into 2013- or, equally bizarrely, 2013 into 1937- and wrongly assumed you were getting at something similar.

You'll mop the floor with me in this debate, as I am quite the rank amateur in this field, no doubt.

Anarcho-syndicalism is neither truly communistic or truly anarchistic. As an offshoot of anarchism it is, by its very nature, revolutionary, yet it stops the revolution before it can truly be completed. Anarcho-syndicalism merely reverses the current primacy of the bourgeoisie over the workers, giving the proletariat the dominant position in society. The emphasis on trade or labour unions is to the detriment of other forces in the society, specifically any forces outside of said unions. So, from the standpoint of both socalism and anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism fails in its primary, revolutionary mission.

The emphasis on labour unions and the working class will also cripple buying power and inter-state trade. Even Rocker said that one of the purposes of anarcho-syndicalism is "[t]o enforce the demands of the producers for the safeguarding and raising of their standard of living." Obviously if the standard of living of producers is rising, the standard of living of those who are NOT producers - which is a bloody big slice of society - will be lowered in comparison. I'm all for giving factory workers a bigger paycheque, and CEOs lower ones, but not at the expense of the middle class. The bourgeoisie are a necessary component of modern societies, and their elimination or even weakening is bound to be detrimental to the state as a whole.

The high emphasis anarcho-syndicalists place on self-determination is also detrimental to the continuation of the state, a necessary organ in society, if only for security. Assuming the best case scenario for anarcho-syndicalism, that being an entire planet of anarcho-syndicalists, you also effectively stifle innovation; anarcho-syndicalism suffers from a lack of any spurs to growth or innovation, just as communism does (there's a very simple word to get at what I'm trying to say here, but I can't wrap my head around it right now) especially regarding new technology. From what I read yesterday, even other anarchists are pointing out the flaws that technological growth is exposing in anarcho-syndicalism.

There's my half-arsed argument. I might be able to do better on a day when I'm not suffering a crippling head-ache and an empty stomach. Even I can see it rambles a bit, and I'm forgetting simple words. I look forward to seeing you tear it apart.

I wasn't looking for a scrap, actually, just interested! Park's planning on starting an "Ask an Anarchist" thread sometime soon, so whatever grand pronouncements I might feel like making (and I don't entirely disagree with you, although probably for different reasons) can wait until then, when they'll be a bit less off-topic.

 

[Agent327]

Dear god you can be dense sometimes Jeelen. Here, allow me to post our entire conversation, point-by-point.

The denseness might be elsewhere:

(bolding mine)

I'm clearly talking about anarchism here.


You claim that Catalonia has experienced anarchy, not anarchism.

No. You mentioned anarchy. I assumed you meant anarchism, which isn't the same thing.

Here I link you to a Wikipedia page dealing with the anarcho-syndicalistic experiments in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War. Anarcho-syndicalism is an offshoot of anarchism.

(bolding mine)

Here you respond by pointing out that anarcho-syndicalism is not anarchy, which confuses me because at absolutely no point in our conversation have I mentioned anarchy. I was discussing anarchism the whole time. As you yourself pointed out earlier, anarchy and anarchism are different things. So why have you now told me that my post, which was not meant to discuss anarchy, is not discussing anarchy?

See above.

I point out that our original discussion was not about anarchy, but in fact about anarchism, which anarcho-syndicalism is obviously an offshoot of. [...]

WHAT THE FLYING MONKEY TESTICLE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?! At absolutely no point in our discussion have I even frigging mentioned the word "anarchy." This post, in fact, is the absolute first time I have mentioned the word in this entire thread, unless you're counting the times I quoted you.

I am discussing anarchism. ANARCHISM! ANARCHISM!!! Not frigging anarchy! So either start discussing anarchism, or stop replying with gibberish.

Shouting doesn't help. You mentioned anarchy (not anarchism). See above.

By the way, nothing you have said (or linked to) has learned me anything about anarchism I didn't know already. Perhaps you should stay on topic.

 

[Lord Baal]

The denseness might be elsewhere:

This is the last time I'm doing this. If you persist after this post, I will not respond. Find a new game.

Last attempt to reason with you. After this, I'm not bothering in any thread.

No. You mentioned anarchy. I assumed you meant anarchism, which isn't the same thing.

This is a lie. After my previous post, no person could honestly still believe this. You are blatantly and illogically holding to a position that I have demonstrably proven is false. You are lying about your own previous statements despite those statements being on this board, in plain sight for absolutely anyone to see, and quoted in the very post you are now quoting yourself, so that they would be fresh in your mind. Even the protagonist in Memento could remember things that were written down.

But, just to humour you, I will repeat our entire conversation up to this point. Again.

(...and force him to fend for himself in case he needs to protect his property or even life)

Anarchism isn't exactly unknown in Catalonia.

That's anarchy, not anarchism.

Not necessarily.

Interesting link to anarcho-syndicalism. Also not anarchy, by the way.

Re-read that. I even included Kaiserguard's post that I initially responded to,, which itself does not mention anarchy, but anarcho-capitalism, another sub-branch of anarchism. If you'd like, you can go back even further and read the post he was responding to, which itself makes no mention of anarchy. While I'm not going through the entirety of this thread to check, I'd daresay that you are the very first person in this entire thread to use the word anarchy.

Just because you've been very dense in this thread, I'll go through this point-by-point for you, just to ensure there is absolutely no possibility whatsoever of any sort of misunderstanding. If, after this post, you persist in your argument that I am the person who began the discussion of "anarchy" in this thread, I will report you for trolling, because there would be no other possible alternative explanation for your behaviour; deliberately attempting to annoy me is the only possible reason for your behaviour from this point.

(...and force him to fend for himself in case he needs to protect his property or even life)

Here Kaiserguard makes a statement about anarcho-capitalism.

Anarchism isn't exactly unknown in Catalonia.

I make a statement about anarchism.

That's anarchy, not anarchism.

You make a statement about anarchy.

Not necessarily.

I provide a link to a description of Catalonia during the Civil War, pointing out that anarchism - in the form of anarcho-syndicalism - existed there. This is to counter your point that Catalonia, which we were discussing, had experienced anarchy, rather than anarchism.

Interesting link to anarcho-syndicalism. Also not anarchy, by the way.

You claim that my link to anarcho-syndicalism (not, strictly speaking, what I was linking to, but I'll roll with it, as that is indeed the form of anarchism that was practiced in revolutionary Catalonia) does not describe anarchy, which is highly confusing to me as I was not in any way attempting to describe anarchy.

Now, if you had genuinely believed that Catalonia had experienced anarchy rather than anarchism, this would be the post in which you attempted to argue that point. Instead, you attempt to argue that you said what I said, and I said what you said. Seriously, wtf are you talking about?

Shouting doesn't help. You mentioned anarchy (not anarchism). See above.

This is very, very pathetic on your part. I could understand refusing to accept you were wrong if the argument was based on opinion, but the very fact that this argument is based around the use of a single word which I never used until my last post in this thread, which is something that is easily and readily visible to everyone, including yourself, is stubborn illogicism at the absolute, irrational height. Even Creationists tend not to deny evolution while looking at it taking place through a microscope.

By the way, nothing you have said (or linked to) has learned me anything about anarchism I didn't know already. Perhaps you should stay on topic.

Here's a link you may find useful. Here's another. For the good (and collective sanity) of the entire WH forum, I beg you to read them. EIther you are trolling or you are inadequate in either your English - your use of "learned" instead of the accurate 'taught' above is demonstration of that, but a few mistakes here and there is no major issue, I make them myself - or your ability to maintain a coherent argument.

Please, read this post carefully, so as to understand it. Please do not respond unless you are willing to admit that you were mistaken above. Any other response by you, I will ignore.