Would people pay taxes in an anarchist country

30 posts / 0 new
Last post
anna_key
Offline
Joined: 23-12-03
Jan 5 2004 15:05
Would people pay taxes in an anarchist country

Would people pay taxes in an anarchist country?

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jan 5 2004 16:41

or countries.

Spartacus's picture
Spartacus
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
Jan 5 2004 17:08

or any authority to pay the taxes to. what kind of a question is that anyway?

solitage
Offline
Joined: 21-09-03
Jan 9 2004 21:22

one designed to wind up anarchists laugh out loud

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Jan 9 2004 21:32

Er, or maybe just a question from someone who doesn't know much about Anarchism. Christ, I guess if someone doesn't know the whole theory from the beginning then they aren't worth bothering with, hey? All you lot just woke up one day knowing your Kropotkin from your Bakunin and the theory and practice of federalism and an Anarchist economy. Never had to ask any questions did you?

Yeah, Anna, the general jist of Anarchism is anti-money, anti-nation and anti-government. As such you wouldn't have tax but rather communities would sort out what was needed at mass community assemblies. It all comes out of Marx's idea of "to each according to their need, from each according to their ability".

solitage
Offline
Joined: 21-09-03
Jan 9 2004 22:31
Ed wrote:
Christ, I guess if someone doesn't know the whole theory from the beginning then they aren't worth bothering with, hey? All you lot just woke up one day knowing your Kropotkin from your Bakunin and the theory and practice of federalism and an Anarchist economy. Never had to ask any questions did you?

Ed this might explain why people thought it was a wind up http://www.enrager.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=755

Anyway nice answer

Spartacus's picture
Spartacus
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
Jan 9 2004 23:18

sorry, i didn't actually mean to sound like a grumpy old bastard (probably with a kropotkinlike beard), that was a terrifying glimpse into me in 50 years time...

Ramona's picture
Ramona
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Jan 10 2004 13:10

Still don't see why it's a wind-up. Anyway, I thought it was a good question, cz i wasn't sure either. And I've never read any books by dead theorists, and I've never really felt the urge to either! tongue

Spartacus's picture
Spartacus
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
Jan 10 2004 13:20

well i've only read two, one was about how cool animals are and they prove that anarchism is natural, which i don't think mentioned taxes, and i don't think the other did either. i did read another thing by some dead guy with a beard which was about how god not only doesn't exist, but that if it did it would have to be destroyed, which didn't mention taxes either. so presumably they assumed people would know that you wouldn't pay taxes in an anarchist society, and this is a shortfall which has held the progress of anarchism back for the last century... so erm, yeah, the answer's no then....i'll stop rambling now.

AlexA
Offline
Joined: 16-09-03
Jan 10 2004 18:02
zobag wrote:
Still don't see why it's a wind-up. Anyway, I thought it was a good question, cz i wasn't sure either. And I've never read any books by dead theorists, and I've never really felt the urge to either! tongue

You weren't sure if you'd have to pay taxes? eek eek

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jan 10 2004 18:12
zobag wrote:
And I've never read any books by dead theorists, and I've never really felt the urge to either! tongue

And i've never really understood this attitude. you can't help it if you're ignorant but why be proud of it?

Spartacus's picture
Spartacus
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
Jan 10 2004 19:48
Quote:
And i've never really understood this attitude. you can't help it if you're ignorant but why be proud of it?

cos if the validity of someone's grasp of political theory lies on whether or not they've read this or that old theorist, then that theory is worthless, irrelevant and dead, no better than a religion. just because people haven't read a load of theoretical tracts does not necessarily mean that they don't engage in theory themselves, otherwise it'll become a hierarchy of the most well read or something...

AlexA
Offline
Joined: 16-09-03
Jan 11 2004 14:39
GenerationTerrorist wrote:

cos if the validity of someone's grasp of political theory lies on whether or not they've read this or that old theorist, then that theory is worthless, irrelevant and dead, no better than a religion. just because people haven't read a load of theoretical tracts does not necessarily mean that they don't engage in theory themselves, otherwise it'll become a hierarchy of the most well read or something...

Nasty's not saying that everyone does have to read stuff, just that it's a bit odd to be proud of it.

And anyway I know that zobags has read dead theorists' stuff anyway so ner tongue wink

anna_key
Offline
Joined: 23-12-03
Jan 13 2004 16:18

ok im sorry for what i asked but i sais i was new in that other thread! shit, cut me some slack! I didnt really mean taxes i meant how will things be run like care for old people and stuff. Will people carry on doing it if they do it as a job? Wont they feel that its unfair cos it is a shitty job and not feel they should have 2 do it anymore or will everyone take it in turn 2 do stuff like that unpaid. P.s Ill say again im not the other anna_key u were going on about its just an unfortunate choice of name.

Mystic
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Jan 14 2004 15:16

Compulsory taxes? No. Voluntary charity? Yes, and lots of it for those in need.

Quote:
We wouldn't have money anyway.

Sorry to change the subject, I don't know if anarchists needs to be in favour of the abolition of money per se. Obviously the current system, based as it is around capital, usury and private property is seriously flawed, but I think that any society requires some method of trade outside the goods themselves. Of course, such a currency wouldn't be recognisable to the inhabitants of today's authoritarian states: it would be open to bargaining and haggling, its value would be set at a largely local and voluntary level, rather than being controlled and manipulated by the capitalist elite to suit their purposes as money is now. I see it kind of like the abolition of exploitative property - possession's still okay, when it's applied in a social sense. In the same way an anarchist society would naturally do away with exploitative money, and replace it with something in which we all have a hand.

Oh, and I'm new here by the way. Hey all grin.

AlexA
Offline
Joined: 16-09-03
Jan 14 2004 15:19

welcome to the boards, mystic! smile

Mystic
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Jan 14 2004 15:28

Thanks, I already like it here grin.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Jan 16 2004 17:13

I guess that an anarchist society would be a more sociable world anyway, people feeling a sense of responsibility for each other, so old people and the like wouldn't be considered to be a problem. Even in today's world, old people are looked after and respected in some cultures!

I think the issue of shitty jobs would have to be worked out by community's and by people people deciding that they would each do their bit. Actually, if the basis of society is solidarity and mutual aid, then people would probably willingly do their bit for the common good. That even happens today in some instances - like lifeboatmen, for example.

In any case, jobs are defined as good or shitty according to the wages we are paid! If we've all got equal access to the things we need to live, then no job will be ointrinsically better than any other![/code]

Mystic
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Jan 17 2004 16:51

Plus possession according to labour instead of capitalist private property would give the poet his pen and paper, while the dustman his dumptruck. It would certainly be much less degrading for people as a whole, and would encourage greater social responsibility all round.

It's funny isn't it that anarchism, despite being a forwards-looking ideology, is in some ways much more "conservative" (with a small 'c') than modern "Conservatism" - anarchists have a sense of moral duty towards old people as opposed to rampant rightwing selfishness. I mean, just looking at the demonstration today, a lot of people there protected the future from fascism in WWII, but because they're too old and out of the system of capital on the one hand and taxation on the other, they're screwed over by authority on all sides.

one_minute_silence
Offline
Joined: 20-01-04
Jan 27 2004 17:14

i think that if there was going to be a sort of currancy in a anarchist society it should be more like how money started out, like viking times, solid gold coins, so theres no exchange rate or anythink, its either gold or it eint....simple Mr. T

and soz if my spelling is crap

black bloc SPLINTER CELL black bloc

3rdseason
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Jan 27 2004 20:26
one_minute_silence wrote:
i think that if there was going to be a sort of currancy in a anarchist society it should be more like how money started out, like viking times, solid gold coins, so theres no exchange rate or anythink, its either gold or it eint....simple Mr. T

Um wouldnt that just be simplified capitalism then and not anarchism? confused

Mystic
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Jan 27 2004 20:30

Yeah, I'd like to think people were trading their commodities and produce based on how difficult it was to make and how much skill it required and how much of a social use it serves, as opposed to just dead metal.

I've changed my mind on the currency thing, there's no way it could work out without causing at least some kind of hierarchy to form.

one_minute_silence
Offline
Joined: 20-01-04
Jan 30 2004 07:43

i dont think i would really, if , for example, gold coins were used, the coins would be made by blacksmiths and you would still trade goods but gold could be used aswell, and it woulding be going into the pockets of any power/money hungry government slabs, it would go to the person who you traded with and then they would use it to trade with someone else and so on. i think it could work cus it worked all throughout history without a governemt so it could work again. but then again it would proberly be better to trade produce because it would be much less hassle.

black bloc SPLINTER CELL black bloc

anna_key
Offline
Joined: 23-12-03
Jan 30 2004 15:41

What if u didnt trade at all? or what if . actually bear in mind im never sure whether i no what im talking about. ive always hated competetiveness seen it as a really bad part of capitalism and the way capitalism seemed 2 encourage production of things noone needs like smaller and smaller phones and wastage, supermarkets always dont sell some stuff and throw it out. -obviously there wouldnt be supermarkets but ive always thought the world would be better organised according to what people need. u no like work out how much of everything people need and then only produce that and countries that produce a certain thing eg bananas (I cant believe i was about to write pyjamas then! I dont no whats wrong with me 2day. Actually i always do it. Once i asked my friend if the cucumber was switched on blah blah blah) Anyway i would work out which country really need ed 2 produce bananas ( or countries) and then protect their trade, make it so noone else was allowed to muscle in on their trade. So maybe thats the opposite of anarchism, i dont know, theres a lot i dont know and probably should by now ive been quite lazy. Ive always thought trading automatically exploited people, all competion creates a hierarchy, winners and losers so trade would have 2 be controlled 2 protect everyone. when i say id decide i mean the people would decide obvously, just express myself lazily. Also what i wanted 2 ask if there was money and something needed a stable income like the NHS would people pay a tax if the whole country had voted and decided that was reasonable. I no it couldnt be enforced (no police) but anyway. would everyone be more split up everything decided in little votes just for local area? that would make big differences between areas i suppose. Or would the world be more 2gether , would there ever be like whole world votes 2 decide stuff.

one_minute_silence
Offline
Joined: 20-01-04
Jan 31 2004 21:29

er yea? great?

confused confused confused confused confused confused confused confused

black bloc SPLINTER CELL black bloc

elementalcriminal
Offline
Joined: 3-02-04
Feb 3 2004 17:40

hey. i don't really know much about anarchy or anarchism, but when i've been on demos i've noticed that the anarchists are always the best and the bravest. could anyone recommend some books i can read which will key me up. ta.

george

ps. my email address is elementalcriminal@hotmail.com

elementalcriminal
Offline
Joined: 3-02-04
Feb 3 2004 18:02

also, i would love to see a revolution. one that actually resulted in something half decent would be even nicer. but i am convinced it will not happen, and if it does it will more than likely be nationalist. when you people talk about 'the glorious day' i think you are kidding yourselves. so is my personal struggle against power, in all its forms both up above and down below, worth it ? is it worth isolating yourself from the mainstream of humanity in the name of an ideal you are convinced will never be achieved? is it worth destroying my life fighting in vain ?

george

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Feb 3 2004 19:12

Goerge, nobody said it is going to happen in one big social awakening, the revolution needs to happen daily not just one day when parliemnt is stormed and overthrown by the people but through building communites and spreading anarchist thought.

The day when the revolution ends should be never, even when we have achieved teh fundementals of anarchy there will still be so much for society to change in 'the revolution of everyday'.....(i cant remember who wrote that article but it was good)

We can achieve a better society, sitting back and letting the system turn you into a disgruntled guy with no hope taht change will come is not fighting the system, they want you to beleive that we cant change society when the truth is we can and one day we will.

Augusto_Sandino
Offline
Joined: 21-02-04
Feb 26 2004 14:45

How would someone pay taxes in an anarchist "country"? Who would they pay taxes to? What would the taxes get used for? the way i saw it was that there wouldnt even be a country, just self governing co-ops (nations are artificial constructs) and there wouldnt be money to pay the taxes in, only material exchange! No one would even need charity, because everything required for living would be provided for free.