Anarchism

Eis

Originally posted by rickyduck
No, I never said I did, I just believe in the philosiphical theory of anarchism, like anarcho-capitilsm is already happening in 1 country, but think about it, the only reason people break the rules is because they CAN, if their is no rules, theres none to break, so noone would do it without a reasonable reason
Err... Do you seriously believe starving people steal food because they want to break the rules? A jealous husband kills his wife's lover because he wants to break the rules? ...no.

Murder, rape, thievery, will all still happen, whether there is a government to impose certain laws or not.

I personally would love an anarchist nation, but in the same way I'd love it if I were able to grow money off trees. People are too greedy, angry, horny, etc. for there to be no rules.

Jonathan Mark

Lord Urizen

rickyduck

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Dude, you are unrealistically idealistic.

No wars? People would fight by the multitudes over property, resources, and any other reasons you can think of.

There would be massive gangfights, uncontrolled rivalries, this country and world would be a free-for-all orgy...every man and woman for themselves.

Did you ever imagine the negative consequences that would arise from an Anarcho-type system?

Did you also ever imagine the positive effects of anrachism? As if there isnt massive gangfights going on at the moment, as if people dont fight over properties at the moment, as if people dont rape each otehr at the moment, they wouldnt fight because there wouldnt be a need to, just like in communism, everything would be shared. No governments perfect, so why not try it without a government? Sambia is an anarcho-capitalist country and its doing Great! So yes, there would be negative points to an anarchist society, but there is in Capitalism, communsim, Socialism, Leninism, marxism, Maoism, any type of government you can think of! There wouldnt be huge wars, or gang fights, it'd be every man for himself, especially in situations like eco anarchy, as there would be so small settlements no-one would need to fight to settle disputes.

There's a bright side to everything!

(Originally posted by Regret
an·ar·chy n. pl. an·ar·chies

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

pol·i·tics n.

2. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government: The politics of the former regime were rejected by the new government leadership. If the politics of the conservative government now borders on the repressive, what can be expected when the economy falters?
6. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The often internally conflicting interrelationships among people in a society.

I took the most relevant definitions of politics here, not all of them since the rest are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose. This seems to be the definition that is misunderstood in the first post on this thread. Anarchy exists between nations at the present time. This is why there is war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and all other multinational conflicts at the present time. There is not a cohesive principle existing between a number of nations. What you are talking about is removing the large scale cohesive principles in favor of individual principles. The probable result would be increasing smaller scale conflict to reduce large scale conflict. Odds are that true anarchy would result in the same, if not a larger, number of casualties. There would be less peace given such a situation. We have historical evidence of the amount of conflict that occurs with larger scale anarchy, or in other words smaller, more numerous, governments. Violence increases.

Also, true anarchy cannot exist. As you approach true anarchy the probability of not having common views among small groups decreases. There will always be some that agree with each other, and whatever they do that defines their views are the methods they are using to manage their unofficial government. Also, is an individual truly an anarchist if he believes in promoting anarchy and anyone agrees with him? The fact that he has a cohesive principle, anarchy in this case, even conflicts with his desire to be an anarchist.

Btw thats ANARCHY, not ANARCHISM)

Regret

Originally posted by rickyduck
But it sais 'as used by some anarchists' for the terrorism bit. Its not a pipe-drime seeming as though Sambia is already an anarcho-capitalist country, sure, one person could believe someone shouldn't do something, but what is he going to do about it?

I cannot find reference to Sambia that supports your claim that it is an anarcho-capitalist country. I found reference to others, but they all fell due to a stronger non-anarcho capitalist society. If it were a decent manner of life it would be able to protect itself, since it cannot, it must not provide enough structure to withstand incursion.

rickyduck

it was somali sorry, .Iceland was Anarcho-capitalist in many aspects. as norway was, but the idea of Anarchism is great. everyone would still carry on making things and developing and letting rooms and hotels, I mean sure, they wont get payed, but whats to loose from it? Charities will still be run for the ill, not poor as there would be no poor, life without a government would mean we are not controlled, we are free.

Jonathan Mark

Originally posted by rickyduck
it was somali sorry, .Iceland was Anarcho-capitalist in many aspects. as norway was, but the idea of Anarchism is great. everyone would still carry on making things and developing and letting rooms and hotels, I mean sure, they wont get payed, but whats to loose from it? Charities will still be run for the ill, not poor as there would be no poor, life without a government would mean we are not controlled, we are free.
You have a very deluded idea of life... Anarchism cannot work.

rickyduck

But why not? And anarchism isnt life, its politics, or a way of life.

Great Vengeance

Democracy, is still mankinds last and best hope.

rickyduck

But what was mankinds first hopeOriginally posted by Great Vengeance
Democracy, is still mankinds last and best hope.

But what was mankinds first hope? Not democracy, for sure...

Great Vengeance

Originally posted by rickyduck
But what was mankinds first hope

But what was mankinds first hope? Not democracy, for sure...

Everything that came before it.

Great Vengeance

Democracy has given us the highest quality of life...ever.

Not sure why you want us to convert to Anarchism, that is far too much freedom. We need order in our lives. We need to find the right balance between freedom and order.

And democracy is the closest we have come yet to finding that perfect balance.

Regret

Originally posted by rickyduck
...the idea of Anarchism is great. everyone would still carry on making things and developing and letting rooms and hotels, I mean sure, they wont get payed, but whats to loose from it? Charities will still be run for the ill, not poor as there would be no poor, life without a government would mean we are not controlled, we are free.

It is a great idea. I don't argue with that. The problem is you could never get everyone to agree with it. If another government existed and decided to invade an anarchism based society would fall. There is no method to maintain a force as large as any other government based society would be capable of. The anarchism based societies of the past all have fallen to governed nations. Celtic Ireland was also anrchism based for a period, there have been around ten documented anarcho-capitalist societies.

rickyduck

Originally posted by Regret
It is a great idea. I don't argue with that. The problem is you could never get everyone to agree with it. If another government existed and decided to invade an anarchism based society would fall. There is no method to maintain a force as large as any other government based society would be capable of. The anarchism based societies of the past all have fallen to governed nations. Celtic Ireland was also anrchism based for a period, there have been around ten documented anarcho-capitalist societies.

but not everyone agrees with a communist government, or capitalist, everyone has their differences. Lets say there was anarchy in the USA, there are in fact quite a few anarchists in USA, and everyone (well, 80% ) turned anarchist, as they saw the optimistic points, the other 20% would just be killed if they tried to do anything.

Regret

Originally posted by rickyduck
but not everyone agrees with a communist government, or capitalist, everyone has their differences. Lets say there was anarchy in the USA, there are in fact quite a few anarchists in USA, and everyone (well, 80% ) turned anarchist, as they saw the optimistic points, the other 20% would just be killed if they tried to do anything.

The issue is that anarchy doesn't lend itself to cohesive unity. Hypothetically 80% turned atheist. The atheists would disagree on the proper method of dealing with the 20% that weren't. If they grouped together in a cohesive way to stop the non-anarchists they would in effect be starting a government, which is the opposite of their intent. Governments don't require everyone agree. An anarchism based society relies on goodwill existing between its members and a desire for the society to work.

rickyduck

Originally posted by Regret
The issue is that anarchy doesn't lend itself to cohesive unity. Hypothetically 80% turned atheist. The atheists would disagree on the proper method of dealing with the 20% that weren't. If they grouped together in a cohesive way to stop the non-anarchists they would in effect be starting a government, which is the opposite of their intent. Governments don't require everyone agree. An anarchism based society relies on goodwill existing between its members and a desire for the society to work.

But what about for the millions of years we lived in Anarchy? We survived through the ice age!

Eis

Hey rickyduck, Anarchism is a wonderful dream, I'd personally love it but not in a society like ours, it just wouldn't work.

People don't break the law because there are laws to break but because of their own greed, lust, wrath, etc.
And although many atrocities do still happen with a government, the government is still able to stop more than a few crimes.

Not because there is no government does it mean people suddenly will start to be merciful, selfless and compassionate.

Eis

Originally posted by rickyduck
But what about for the millions of years we lived in Anarchy? We survived through the ice age!
All tribes had leaders, or shamans, or some form of authority figure. messed

rickyduck

Originally posted by Eis
Hey rickyduck, Anarchism is a wonderful dream, I'd personally love it but not in a society like ours, it just wouldn't work.

People don't break the law because there are laws to break but because of their own greed, lust, wrath, etc.
And although many atrocities do still happen with a government, the government is still able to stop more than a few crimes.

Not because there is no government does it mean people suddenly will start to be merciful, selfless and compassionate.

I never said selfless, but there would certainly be less crime, yea people do it out of their own greed, and revenge, but they also do it to defy a nation, protests is a prime example of that.

Originally posted by Eis
All tribes had leaders, or shamans, or some form of authority figure. messed

An authority figure, but he was just someone they worship, not follow rules.

Eis

Originally posted by rickyduck
I never said selfless, but there would certainly be less crime, yea people do it out of their own greed, and revenge, but they also do it to defy a nation, protests is a prime example of that.

An authority figure, but he was just someone they worship, not follow rules.
You seriously believe there would be less crime if there were no government? Well, technically you're right since there would be no laws, so murder and thievery would not be a crime. But people would still do those things, and since there would be no consequences they'd do it a lot more.

And I doubt the percentage of protest crimes, like bombings of anarchist activist groups are any high than 5 percent of all crimes.

And, the shamans or tribe leaders did impose laws among the clans or tribes. I've never heard of any clan or tribe with no leader to impose laws.

rickyduck

In the Caveman times they didnt have tribes, it was, practically, Anarchy, every man for himself. What i'm trying to get at is, there would be no need for crimes, people do crimes for a reason, and theivery wouldnt be theivery because all that the person they stole it of has to do is get another 1. For free! Bombings of Anarchist activist groups? Anarchists are nearlly pacifists! They dont support violence in anyway shape or form. There are a lot of protests, wether they are just mild (like people riding nude through london) or major, like animal rights activists.

Eis

Originally posted by rickyduck
In the Caveman times they didnt have tribes, it was, practically, Anarchy, every man for himself. What i'm trying to get at is, there would be no need for crimes, people do crimes for a reason, and theivery wouldnt be theivery because all that the person they stole it of has to do is get another 1. For free! Bombings of Anarchist activist groups? Anarchists are nearlly pacifists! They dont support violence in anyway shape or form. There are a lot of protests, wether they are just mild (like people riding nude through london) or major, like animal rights activists.
First of all, if you label yourself as an Anarchist do some research first. Anarchist are not all pacifists, many believe in achieving an Anarchist world by violent means.

Now, the theory of anarchy suggests that people will be satisfied with what they need and what they need only, like Communism. But people are always going to want things they can't get.

rickyduck

Originally posted by Eis
First of all, if you label yourself as an Anarchist do some research first. Anarchist are not all pacifists, many believe in achieving an Anarchist world by violent means.

Now, the theory of anarchy suggests that people will be satisfied with what they need and what they need only, like Communism. But people are always going to want things they can't get.

I never labelled myself as an anarchist! I'm socialist, I only said I was obsessed with anarchism after eading an article about it.
Everyone wants things they can't get anyway, in Capitilism, nationalism, Pacifism, Communism, Socialism, luxembourgism everything, but in unlike in a state of anarchism, we would want things that dont exist, in anarchy we would want things that do exist, and get them. the only reason people WANT things is for entertainment/to show off, or to cause disruption. I never said all anarchists are pacifists, hell no, as you said, many people believe getting anarchism by destructive means.

Eis

Originally posted by rickyduck
I never labelled myself as an anarchist! I'm socialist, I only said I was obsessed with anarchism after eading an article about it.
Everyone wants things they can't get anyway, in Capitilism, nationalism, Pacifism, Communism, Socialism, luxembourgism everything, but in unlike in a state of anarchism, we would want things that dont exist, in anarchy we would want things that do exist, and get them. the only reason people WANT things is for entertainment/to show off, or to cause disruption. I never said all anarchists are pacifists, hell no, as you said, many people believe getting anarchism by destructive means.
Ok, I'm confused, you're socialist now? There are some things that would suggest otherwise.

Either way, yes everyone wants things that they can't get regardless of the type of government, but people go through rather drastic means to get what they want and Democracy, Communism, Socialism all make sure there's a certain line people can't cross.
We are not animals, we have brains, there are bounds, no government would be a big mess and should not happen unless overnight we all become merciful, generous beings.

And for the last part "I never said all anarchists are pacifists, hell no, as you said, many people believe getting anarchism by destructive means."
I'm quite sure you did.

ThePrincessBee

Mankinds first hope was fire-worshiping.baby

rickyduck

Originally posted by Eis
Ok, I'm confused, you're socialist now? There are some things that would suggest otherwise.

Either way, yes everyone wants things that they can't get regardless of the type of government, but people go through rather drastic means to get what they want and Democracy, Communism, Socialism all make sure there's a certain line people can't cross.
We are not animals, we have brains, there are bounds, no government would be a big mess and should not happen unless overnight we all become merciful, generous beings.

And for the last part "I never said all anarchists are pacifists, hell no, as you said, many people believe getting anarchism by destructive means."
I'm quite sure you did.

I said I 'believed' in the theory of anarchism, never ment i am anarchist, i just thought it would be a good idea, not as good as socialism.

As for the second bit. im an idiot, because I was wrong, i was ment to say 'most anarchists are pacifists, and those ones dont support violence', especialy the eco-anarchists and green anarchists. Im very sorry for my mistake.

Whats wrong with animals? Just because our high industrial usage is killing them all of, doesnt mean we're better than them.

Originally posted by ThePrincessBee
Mankinds first hope was fire-worshiping.baby

actually fishing.

Eis

What about the other quote? You said you reckoned the whole world should turn anarchist. What the ****?

rickyduck

Originally posted by Eis
What about the other quote? You said you reckoned the whole world should turn anarchist. What the ****?

Yes, over capitalist. there is no socialist countries (that I know of), yet there is an anarchist country, and look how well its doing.

Eis

Originally posted by rickyduck
Yes, over capitalist. there is no socialist countries (that I know of), yet there is an anarchist country, and look how well its doing.
So ok, you're not an anarchist, you're a socialist but you don't think the whole world should be socialist but you think the whle

And what country is anarchist? I'm quite surprised I haven't heard of it.

rickyduck

Originally posted by Eis
So ok, you're not an anarchist, you're a socialist but you don't think the whole world should be socialist but you think the whle

And what country is anarchist? I'm quite surprised I haven't heard of it.

Somali, Anarcho-Capitalist, and I know im anti-capitalist, but it only uses capitalism as a baseline. Anarchism in Somali is doing it very well, and I'd much prefer to live there than here.

Bardock42

Somaia is doing fine? When did that happen?

Eis

Originally posted by rickyduck
Somali, Anarcho-Capitalist, and I know im anti-capitalist, but it only uses capitalism as a baseline. Anarchism in Somali is doing it very well, and I'd much prefer to live there than here.
You think Somalia is doing well? ...no.
"Anarchy" won't last there for long anyway... Hopefully the government there will get recognition soon.

rickyduck

Originally posted by Eis
You think Somalia is doing well? ...no.
"Anarchy" won't last there for long anyway... Hopefully the government there will get recognition soon.

anarchys been going on for quite a bit of time their, and they arent doing three bad.

Bardock42

Originally posted by rickyduck
anarchys been going on for quite a bit of time their, and they arent doing three bad.

You know they are one of the poorest countries in the world....

Eis

Do you know the definition of the word "crime"? In case you don't, here:

1 : an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law

If there is no government and no laws, there would be no such thing as crime.
How ever, things we today now consider criminal (like thievery and murder) would still happen, how can I prove that? (even though it seems foolish to me that someone would suggest that once there was no government, suddenly people would turn merciful and selfless) In Somalia crimes do still happen, no?

rickyduck

Originally posted by Eis
Do you know the definition of the word "crime"? In case you don't, here:

1 : an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law

If there is no government and no laws, there would be no such thing as crime.
How ever, things we today now consider criminal (like thievery and murder) would still happen, how can I prove that? (even though it seems foolish to me that someone would suggest that once there was no government, suddenly people would turn merciful and selfless) In Somalia crimes do still happen, no?

So what are you saying? That hes right or wrong?

Bardock42

Originally posted by rickyduck
One of, but not, and of course they are, in anarchist countries you dont have money, so they wouldnt really be poor, just moneyless.

You could never attempt reall communism or socialism anywere, becue there will always be a capitalist government thats stronger.

And poor..moneyless and poor..don't forget that they'd be poor too.

Alliance

ummm..notice how all the puppet capitalist nations the US set up around the world fall as soon as the slightest economic strife hits.

look at Easterd Europe during the Cold War.

rickyduck

Originally posted by Bardock42
And poor..moneyless and poor..don't forget that they'd be poor too.

Yes but It wouldnt make a difference.

Originally posted by Alliance
ummm..notice how all the puppet capitalist nations the US set up around the world fall as soon as the slightest economic strife hits.

look at Easterd Europe during the Cold War.

but thats capitlism not anarchism...

Eis

Originally posted by rickyduck
So what are you saying? That hes right or wrong?
Who are you asking that to?

Da preacher

Rickyduck, R u really that dumb?

Ever been to Somalia?
It's like living hell.

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=Somalia&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-img-t-t400&x=wrt

Looks good, huh?

U'd rather live there. Really?

First 3 hits for Photo search: Somalia:

http://www.djweb.com.br/seculo/somalia.jpg

http://www.contrasto.it/img/somalia_m137_img.jpg

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/images/2003/03/204945.jpg

rickyduck

Originally posted by Eis
Who are you asking that to?

you..

Originally posted by Da preacher
Rickyduck, R u really that dumb?

Ever been to Somalia?
It's like living hell.

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=Somalia&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-img-t-t400&x=wrt

Looks good, huh?

U'd rather live there. Really?

First 3 hits for Photo search: Somalia:

http://www.djweb.com.br/seculo/somalia.jpg

http://www.contrasto.it/img/somalia_m137_img.jpg

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/images/2003/03/204945.jpg

Well, there is a war going on there, im sure thats not doing them much good either... i never said i wanted to live there, and Its right next to Ethiopia, its bound to have famine, thats nothing to do with the way the countries run..., and what, have you been to somalia? Or are you just judging it from a few pictures that show the deepest depths of despair there?

WrathfulDwarf

Originally posted by rickyduck
Ok, I've been totally obsessed with anarchism over the past few days, especially anarcho-communism and eco-anarchism, and I reckon the world should turn anarchist, as I think its a great idea - no government would mean no wars which would mean peace, and everything would turn out fine.

Sorry but that's just NOT true...how would you have commerce or establish trade without rules and someone to enforce them? How would you eat if everyone just decide not work? For that fact how would others feed, cloth, build homes if everyone just choses to rid of a establish organization? You can't just say..."Oh our ancestors didn't depend on each other to survive" Newsflash: We cannot overthrow everything and start all over. It's out of the question...that's just simple irreponsibility.

Peace? every ideology offers peace...but it is easier said than done. Communism offers peace....Democracy, Aristocracy, and so on...we're not peaceful creatures. Plain and simple....violence is a part of us and it will remain with us for centuries and centuries to come.

Cyric Blackstar

rickyduck

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Sorry but that's just NOT true...how would you have commerce or establish trade without rules and someone to enforce them? How would you eat if everyone just decide not work? For that fact how would others feed, cloth, build homes if everyone just choses to rid of a establish organization? You can't just say..."Oh our ancestors didn't depend on each other to survive" Newsflash: We cannot overthrow everything and start all over. It's out of the question...that's just simple irreponsibility.

Peace? every ideology offers peace...but it is easier said than done. Communism offers peace....Democracy, Aristocracy, and so on...we're not peaceful creatures. Plain and simple....violence is a part of us and it will remain with us for centuries and centuries to come.

Not really, the idea of anarchsim is to work volantaraly (sorry for my bad spelling)
And as above, the idea of anarchism is to be harmonius.

the reason we are violent is because of other ideoligies that we think are good etc, (well thats what I think), like rascism, fascism, and what we believe we should have....

If anarchism is so bad why are so many people anarchist? Im not reffering to social darwinism here, and not every ideology offers peace, quite obviously... (just like social darwinism)

lil bitchiness

Originally posted by rickyduck
anarcho-communism

This is an oxymoron. Communism and anarchism are complete opposites.

Bardock42

I agree that they are opposites judging by the "communist" countries we had. But don't you think that on a basic (theoretical) level they could be used together. I mean, does communism need a government or actually wouldn't a government be against the basic idea of communism?

rickyduck

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
This is an oxymoron. Communism and anarchism are complete opposites.

Which is why they made anarcho communsim....

http://www.punkerslut.com/articles/anarchocommunism.html

Now tell me its an oxymoron...

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree that they are opposites judging by the "communist" countries we had. But don't you think that on a basic (theoretical) level they could be used together. I mean, does communism need a government or actually wouldn't a government be against the basic idea of communism?

Good point, but Anarcho-Communism can be classed as a branch of communism or anarchism...

WrathfulDwarf

Originally posted by rickyduck
Not really, the idea of anarchsim is to work volantaraly (sorry for my bad spelling)
And as above, the idea of anarchism is to be harmonius.

the reason we are violent is because of other ideoligies that we think are good etc, (well thats what I think), like rascism, fascism, and what we believe we should have....

If anarchism is so bad why are so many people anarchist? Im not reffering to social darwinism here, and not every ideology offers peace, quite obviously... (just like social darwinism)

Everyone works voluntary...that's the general idea. You don't work...you don't eat (unless you decide to be a beggar but that's another discussion) I can't see anarchism in a harminous way if there is no order, laws, business without a government that regulates things.

Even if you were to implement the idea of anarchism into people's lives...there is still has to be a form of rule. Those rules have to be enforce by governing group. There still be leadership under a group of certain individuals. Thus you might as well call it..."presiding government"

Anarcho-Communism may not be what you think. Would you like an example? I'll give you one:

The Cultural Revolution of China.

They were communists and fought each other for leadership. Basically it was an Anarchist confusion among themselves. That's a good thing?

Eis

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Everyone works voluntary...that's the general idea. You don't work...you don't eat (unless you decide to be a beggar but that's another discussion) I can't see anarchism in a harminous way if there is no order, laws, business without a government that regulates things.

Even if you were to implement the idea of anarchism into people's lives...there is still has to be a form of rule. Those rules have to be enforce by governing group. There still be leadership under a group of certain individuals. Thus you might as well call it..."presiding government"

Anarcho-Communism may not be what you think. Would you like an example? I'll give you one:

The Cultural Revolution of China.

They were communists and fought each other for leadership. Basically it was an Anarchist confusion among themselves. That's a good thing?
What the hell? The 'anarcho' part of Anarcho-Communism is a political theory not a state of political disorder.
The Cultural Revolution was Mao's way of ensuring a Maoist future for the PROC and letting Liu and Deng know that he was still chairman and he was still pulling the strings.
That seems like political disorder to me, not the political theory of Anarcho-Communism.

rickyduck

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Everyone works voluntary...that's the general idea. You don't work...you don't eat (unless you decide to be a beggar but that's another discussion) I can't see anarchism in a harminous way if there is no order, laws, business without a government that regulates things.

Even if you were to implement the idea of anarchism into people's lives...there is still has to be a form of rule. Those rules have to be enforce by governing group. There still be leadership under a group of certain individuals. Thus you might as well call it..."presiding government"

Anarcho-Communism may not be what you think. Would you like an example? I'll give you one:

The Cultural Revolution of China.

They were communists and fought each other for leadership. Basically it was an Anarchist confusion among themselves. That's a good thing?

Just as Eis said, thats not anarcho-communism..... it was never intended to be and never was... fighting is not anarchism....

Plus we dont work voluntarily, we work out of the will to raise salary, working voluntarilly would mean without pay, just like voluntary work at the moment.

lil bitchiness

Originally posted by rickyduck
Which is why they made anarcho communsim....

http://www.punkerslut.com/articles/anarchocommunism.html

Now tell me its an oxymoron...

Good point, but Anarcho-Communism can be classed as a branch of communism or anarchism...

I read the site you gave me and the term is still an oxymoron - Anrachism is not a system - its an absence of leader too, thats true, but it is not a system. Communism is a system. Anarchism is a disorder, and communism is a complete order - thats why anarchism and communism cannot go together.

That would be the same thing if I put communism and fascism together, then gave an example of Stalin and how similar he was to Hitler and Mussolini.
They might have been similar, but communism and fascism could never ever be together, because the very basic deffinition of fascism is ''nationalist, anti-marxist, mass mobilising political movement...''

Same goes with Anarchism and Communism - one is complete order, and the other is a complite disorder.
Just because they share ONE similar characteristics, they cannot be practiced together.

WrathfulDwarf

Originally posted by Eis
What the hell? The 'anarcho' part of Anarcho-Communism is a political theory not a state of political disorder.
The Cultural Revolution was Mao's way of ensuring a Maoist future for the PROC and letting Liu and Deng know that he was still chairman and he was still pulling the strings.
That seems like political disorder to me, not the political theory of Anarcho-Communism.

Oh yeah, what a great way to secure the future of a party by throwing the whole nation into mass hysteria, confusion, disorder, revolts, and lack of authority. Yeah, I'm sure that secuse mistrust and suspicion for the later generations about their parties intentions. What interesting way to pull the strings and be near the brink of a civil war. Whatever Mao's intentions were they still led to disoriented anarchism. This was practically a theory put into test.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness

Same goes with Anarchism and Communism - one is complete order, and the other is a complite disorder.
Just because they share ONE similar characteristics, they cannot be practiced together.

Exactly, well done lil.

rickyduck

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I read the site you gave me and the term is still an oxymoron - Anrachism is not a system - its an absence of leader too, thats true, but it is not a system. Communism is a system. Anarchism is a disorder, and communism is a complete order - thats why anarchism and communism cannot go together.

That would be the same thing if I put communism and fascism together, then gave an example of Stalin and how similar he was to Hitler and Mussolini.
They might have been similar, but communism and fascism could never ever be together, because the very basic deffinition of fascism is ''nationalist, anti-marxist, mass mobilising political movement...''

Same goes with Anarchism and Communism - one is complete order, and the other is a complite disorder.
Just because they share ONE similar characteristics, they cannot be practiced together.

Practiced together? Its a theory, its never been practiced, neithers anarchism, or socialism (properly). Anarchism is a label, calling it a disorder is practically ignorant... Disorder, thats like calling satanism a disorder, but anarchisms more light hearted.

And wrathfuldwarf, what makes you think Anarchism is mass hysteria, confusion, disorder etc... thats not anarchism... not theoretically, its just mass confusion.

Phoenix2001

Originally posted by rickyduck
Practiced together? Its a theory, its never been practiced, neithers anarchism, or socialism (properly). Anarchism is a label, calling it a disorder is practically ignorant... Disorder, thats like calling satanism a disorder, but anarchisms more light hearted.

And wrathfuldwarf, what makes you think Anarchism is mass hysteria, confusion, disorder etc... thats not anarchism... not theoretically, its just mass confusion.

It's just massive mess. Anarchism simply would not do in a world that requires an order, especially considering the very billions of people who live today. And besides, an anarchism would not stay an anarchism for too long. Eventually it would become something else, whether a dictatorship or a monarchy. Depending on the growth of an organization, an anarchy's existence is determined by the one leading the organization.

Eis

Look, I am not judging whether Mao's intentions. I'm saying there's a difference between the meaning of the word "Anarchy" which is political disorder or lack of government and the political theory of Anarchism.
The period in China which we call the "Cultural Revolution" was a prime example of political disorder or "anarchy", however anarcho-communism does not mean political disorder in a communism nation, it's a political theory.

rickyduck

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
It's just massive mess. Anarchism simply would not do in a world that requires an order, especially considering the very billions of people who live today. And besides, an anarchism would not stay an anarchism for too long. Eventually it would become something else, whether a dictatorship or a monarchy. Depending on the growth of an organization, an anarchy's existence is determined by the one leading the organization.

This is basically what Eis is arguing against aswell:

Originally posted by Eis
Look, I am not judging whether Mao's intentions. I'm saying there's a difference between the meaning of the word "Anarchy" which is political disorder or lack of government and the political theory of Anarchism.
The period in China which we call the "Cultural Revolution" was a prime example of political disorder or "anarchy", however anarcho-communism does not mean political disorder in a communism nation, it's a political theory.

People who think Anarchism is mess and disorder, why be so naive? Anarchism isnt determined by a leader, it wouldn't even have a leader, and of course it could work in this world, it does require order, but why by a controlling government? Whatever happened to freedom of speech? It wouldn't be a mass of hysteria, thats rather naive and 'jumping to conclusionist'...

Phoenix2001

Originally posted by rickyduck
People who think Anarchism is mess and disorder, why be so naive? Anarchism isnt determined by a leader, it wouldn't even have a leader, and of course it could work in this world, it does require order, but why by a controlling government? Whatever happened to freedom of speech? It wouldn't be a mass of hysteria, thats rather naive and 'jumping to conclusionist'...

But who's to say that someone will not try to become a leader? Considering the logic of an anarchy, this someone would have all the right to become a leader and create a organization of some form. It's rather naive to think that the general public alone would not do whatever its wants if it's free to do it. And that includes those who have wild ambitions or blood thristy thoughts. Sorry to say, but anarchism is not a system. All it would lead to is feudalism.

rickyduck

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
But who's to say that someone will not try to become a leader? Considering the logic of an anarchy, this someone would have all the right to become a leader and create a organization of some form. It's rather naive to think that the general public alone would not do whatever its wants if it's free to do it. And that includes those who have wild ambitions or blood thristy thoughts. Sorry to say, but anarchism is not a system. All it would lead to is feudalism.

Anarchism is a system! Just because it doesnt have a government (just like communism) doesn't make it not a system, and how would it turn to feudalism? Thats basically what its against.. anarchism is hardly anarchy, its just a label meaning no governing body!

The Black Ghost

So basically anarchy... Sure, it would be nice, but there will be people who will always be evil and mess it up for everyone else- plus we wouldnt have anything without a government. but a nice idea, even if one that will never work.

jaden101

Originally posted by Arcana
Read the book "Lord of the Flies".

far better reading high-rise byt JG Ballard...must more vivid example of social anarchism

rickyduck

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
So basically anarchy... Sure, it would be nice, but there will be people who will always be evil and mess it up for everyone else- plus we wouldnt have anything without a government. but a nice idea, even if one that will never work.

We would have stuff..

Originally posted by jaden101
far better reading high-rise byt JG Ballard...must more vivid example of social anarchism

Social Anarchism? Its more communism, IMO...

Phoenix2001

Originally posted by rickyduck
Anarchism is a system! Just because it doesnt have a government (just like communism) doesn't make it not a system, and how would it turn to feudalism? Thats basically what its against.. anarchism is hardly anarchy, its just a label meaning no governing body!

As democracy is already showing us... the people do not always agree, and without a governing body to control a spark or outburst that will more than likely turn up, what's to keep massive chaos from spreading outwards?

And Communism is a system. It is a government made up of a group or an organization of leaders. So, yea, communism is pretty far from Anarchism

The Omega

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
As democracy is already showing us... the people do not always agree, and without a governing body to control a spark or outburst that will more than likely turn up, what's to keep massive chaos from spreading outwards?
No people do not always agree. So what is it exactly you claim government does??

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
And Communism is a system. It is a government made up of a group or an organization of leaders. So, yea, communism is pretty far from Anarchism

Ehrm... What dictionary did you use?

Capt_Fantastic

The term "anarchy" has been changed over the years. It originally meant no form of government. Kind of like the political equivelent of "Do unto others and you would have them do unto you". It's a non-political system that relies on the good judgment of those who exist under it. Only in last few decades has it come to mean chaos and civil unrest. People think it has more to do with burning cops in their squad cars and wreaking a home electronics store than it does with simply living your life without the interference of a government.

In either case, I disagree with the concept.

Phoenix2001

Originally posted by The Omega
So what is it exactly you claim government does??

What kind of question is that? Are you stupid? Or are you just a little naive?

Originally posted by The Omega
Ehrm... What dictionary did you use?

I'm just going to ignore this question.

WrathfulDwarf

Originally posted by Bardock42
Somaia is doing fine? When did that happen?

I know you like the sport....but never watch world cup game while traveling in Somalia:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060705/ap_on_re_af/somalia_world_cup

rickyduck

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
As democracy is already showing us... the people do not always agree, and without a governing body to control a spark or outburst that will more than likely turn up, what's to keep massive chaos from spreading outwards?

And Communism is a system. It is a government made up of a group or an organization of leaders. So, yea, communism is pretty far from Anarchism Originally posted by Phoenix2001
What kind of question is that? Are you stupid? Or are you just a little naive?

I'm just going to ignore this question.

How is he naive? And Communism isnt ment to have a governing body, theoretically...

The Black Ghost

Originally posted by rickyduck
We would have stuff..

Yeh? Like what? No government> no industry> no jobs>no stuff> anarchy, death, blah blah, so on and so forth.

Point proven? laughing out loud

rickyduck

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Yeh? Like what? No government> no industry> no jobs>no stuff> anarchy, death, blah blah, so on and so forth.

Point proven? laughing out loud

not really, what you just said is completely opinionist, and you prove nothing, its like saying the government makes the industry.. how naive..

Phoenix2001

Originally posted by rickyduck
not really, what you just said is completely opinionist, and you prove nothing, its like saying the government makes the industry.. how naive..

Well... can you prove that your opinion is any more true? Anarchism will simply exercise no control. While having no control sounds good it won't guarantee that we'll keep our heads screwed on.

This is how I would expect an anarchist ideal turn out. Anarchism spreads. Everyone is fine, getting along as they normally would... for the moment. The benefit of the calm before the storm is given to the people from the beginning. Eventually, riots break, and the bad guys realize that they can do bad things, and get away with it. History is lost. Our society is driven into a dark age. Everyone is out running and hiding, acting on the basic instinct: survival. A man/woman rises and takes authority into their own hands. An organization is crafted into a New World Order. Whatever this new rule may be it would be a controlling government.

An anarchism is not an anarchism if a system of control is involved.

Get it?

The Black Ghost

Originally posted by rickyduck
not really, what you just said is completely opinionist, and you prove nothing, its like saying the government makes the industry.. how naive..

Naive? Let me make it simpler... who the hell is going to go to work for no money. You might say that there would still be money, but the monetary system would become obsolete at that point because government funded jobs would disapear because A- theres no government, and B- there are no taxes. With the loss of government jobs, there would be the loss of a huge amount of utilities, companies would start to fail left and right, small buisiness would be basically overrun/ and robbed and destroyed. Industry would be nonexistant- unless there is some way people could come together for the purpose of a common goal but that would never happen....