Anarchism

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?

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.

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.

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.

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, [b]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. [/B]

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.

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.

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 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'...

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.

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!

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.

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

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...

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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...

Originally posted by rickyduck
[B]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? 😂