Skittles! wrote: I know. Anarchy Ninja. Hmmmm. I wonder where about's he lives.
Anyway, the Rogue aren't an actual clan, are they? I couldn't find them
Actually, im Aus as well. Anarchy Ninja and I live in the same town and go to the same school.
Wow, that's cool. But I must say, QLD sucks. Haha.
im not too fond of where we live, its a smallish town so we dont have much to do and its always hot and sunny i wish it would rain
I live in a region with 300,000 people and blah. Heaps to do, just takes too long to get to some places.
I love the rain, I hate the sun and when it's hot. I can't wait till I visit Melbourne
KraphtOne wrote:when you sign up a new account one of the check boxes should be "do you want to foe colton24 (it is highly recommended) "
qeee1 wrote:BTW anarchy doesn't necessarily mean no organisation, it's just strictly opposed to heirarchical organisation, or forced association.
It for sure doesn't mean no organisation.... the "O" surrounding the "A" in the symbol stands for order. Despite popular belief, anarchy does not mean choas- everyone running around doing what they please....it's a decentralization of power (horizontal vs. vertical).
flashleg8 wrote:I'm more of a communist than an anarchist, though I see no reason why a true socialist society could not exist in an anarchist form (without the need for a centralised government). I believe once people are shown how much better and fairer a cooperative system free from oppression is, to the present corrupt exploitative one, there will not be the problems of selfishness. In our present western society the greed and selfishness comes from artificial consumer propaganda. It is truly not necessary to have a bigger car, a TV in every room or to eat luxury foods from half way round the world. People are starving to death and living on the streets. If communities worked together to supply their own needs without fat cats skimming off the top of the workers produce, there would be less resentment. Everyone would realise that the harder they worked the better the whole community (or country, or planet!) fairs - not as it presently is; the harder you work, the richer your boss gets. There would be no crime of theft as everyone would have equal access to the community resources - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". If people do commit crimes against the group, they can of course be censored - by the group. This makes justice more direct, transparent and accountable.
This is such a load of poorly thought out crap I nearly threw up. That said, this is a thread to discuss anarchy, not communism, so I won't go into the details. Suffice to say you're encouraging the complete collapse of an economy (working for the betterment of mankind my arse) and as a result all tax (which means no social welfare for you socialists).
Anarchy itself means a lack of government (ie. a state without law). As has already been stated, this would be great if everybody got on. If there was nobody to mediate between neighbours over property borders then do you really think that both parties could just come to a peaceful solution? The more anarchy the better when it comes to a free market but there will always be room in society for a state mediator or society itself would collapse in on itself. The end result would, of course, be a reestablishment of government, probably a dictatorship.
Last edited by chewyman on Sun Apr 15, 2007 7:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?
chewyman wrote:This is such a load of poorly thought out crap I nearly threw up. That said, this is a thread to discuss anarchy, not communism, so I won't go into the details. Suffice to say you're encouraging the complete collapse of an economy (working for the betterment of mankind my arse) and as a result all tax (which means no social welfare for you socialists).
communists =/= socialists, learn what you're talking about before you talk at all.
Anarchy itself means a lack of government (ie. a state without law). As has already been stated, this would be great if everybody got on. If there was nobody to mediate between neighbours over property borders then do you really think that both parties could just come to a peaceful solution? The more anarchy the better when it comes to a free market but there will always be room in society for a state mediator or society itself would collapse in on itself. The end result would, of course, be a reestablishment of government, probably a dictatorship.
firstly, anarchy means a lack of leaders (archons) not a lack of laws. free market capitalism is a retarded idea and if you can't work out why for yourself then that says a lot. there is a reason governments stepped in to stop it, and there is a reason they continue to do so every time it starts to happen again.
Anarchy has a lot of potential but the people have to know what they are doing. One person can ruin the entire anarchy by being a dousche and stealing and saying 'no laws, bitch!'
communism isn't a bad thing, but how the russians did it was not a good thing, they sayd "everyone is the same" but they did control everything... so they were not the same as the others...
Wisse wrote:communism isn't a bad thing, but how the russians did it was not a good thing, they sayd "everyone is the same" but they did control everything... so they were not the same as the others...
i am a socialst that looks better to me
russia was never communist. despite all the smaller details, it wasn't global, it wasn't post-capitalist, and it had a state. leninism/stalinism isn't really communism, and it certainly isn't marxism
Wisse wrote:communism isn't a bad thing, but how the russians did it was not a good thing, they sayd "everyone is the same" but they did control everything... so they were not the same as the others...
i am a socialst that looks better to me
russia was never communist. despite all the smaller details, it wasn't global, it wasn't post-capitalist, and it had a state. leninism/stalinism isn't really communism, and it certainly isn't marxism
Both the above posters have it spot on. Russia was a social experiment that ultimately failed for many reasons (not least the interference from the capitalist nations). The goals of the revolution were twisted under Stalin and as Wisse said the people in power just became a new elite. This doesn't necessarily mean the ideology itself is worthless. I still firmly believe that this is a necessary step along the road to a true socialist society.
As for anarchy in practice: as I've posted before on these forums, during the Spanish civil war (1936-1939ish) lots of socialist anarchist groups took control of the areas around the Barcelona region of Northern Spain. These societies functioned well with the people directly governing themselves through trade unions and collectives. Money was even abolished in some instances. Unfortunately due to the necessity to consolidate opposition against the fascists (backed heavily by the Nazis and fascist Italy) ultimately Stalinists took control of the Republican movement and these movements where dissolved.
The existence of these true anarchist communities functioning in modern society show that the idea of anarchism could become a reality.
Wisse wrote:communism isn't a bad thing, but how the russians did it was not a good thing, they sayd "everyone is the same" but they did control everything... so they were not the same as the others...
i am a socialst that looks better to me
russia was never communist. despite all the smaller details, it wasn't global, it wasn't post-capitalist, and it had a state. leninism/stalinism isn't really communism, and it certainly isn't marxism
Both the above posters have it spot on. Russia was a social experiment that ultimately failed for many reasons (not least the interference from the capitalist nations). The goals of the revolution were twisted under Stalin and as Wisse said the people in power just became a new elite. This doesn't necessarily mean the ideology itself is worthless. I still firmly believe that this is a necessary step along the road to a true socialist society.
As for anarchy in practice: as I've posted before on these forums, during the Spanish civil war (1936-1939ish) lots of socialist anarchist groups took control of the areas around the Barcelona region of Northern Spain. These societies functioned well with the people directly governing themselves through trade unions and collectives. Money was even abolished in some instances. Unfortunately due to the necessity to consolidate opposition against the fascists (backed heavily by the Nazis and fascist Italy) ultimately Stalinists took control of the Republican movement and these movements where dissolved. The existence of these true anarchist communities functioning in modern society show that the idea of anarchism could become a reality.
And that is where small group collectives fall to pieces, They will always fall to the majority rule.
If you consider Anarchy to be a small group working independently from society, then you are not talking about anarchy at all. There are still Leaders, just because you have shut yourself away from them doesn't make them go away.
Anarchy in the wider sense, would not work and i think the concensus of opinion in this thread agrees (never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers).
An Anarchistic Microcosm is not Anarchy atall, just like Russia wasn't comunist.
I believe in the hope that it would someday be a viable option...
I believe I will not live to see that...
I believe that the governments that have thus been formed have all failed, as all WILL fail. There are too many faults in all levels, all types of governments... Including Anarchy.
I believe that Anarchy is a concept that, not unlike religion, is impossible to be indifferent to... You either love it or hate it... Most that hate, hate out of ignorance, most who love, love out of ideals.
virus90 wrote: I think Anarkist is a valuable asset to any game.
Anarkistsdream wrote:I believe in the concept of anarchy...
I believe in the hope that it would someday be a viable option...
I believe I will not live to see that...
I believe that the governments that have thus been formed have all failed, as all WILL fail. There are too many faults in all levels, all types of governments... Including Anarchy.
I believe that Anarchy is a concept that, not unlike religion, is impossible to be indifferent to... You either love it or hate it... Most that hate, hate out of ignorance, most who love, love out of ideals.
Haters crack skulls, which eventually win wars.
Ideals are a nice idea, but they are unfortunately not based in reality.
It seems like some of the proponents of anarchy seem to be describing what I would consider to be libertarianism (which I can't stand, but won't describe why, as this is an anarchy thread) Can you discuss some of the differences between what you want and libertarians? Anarchy does seem somewhat attractive in principle (compared to what we got, definitely), but it seems a pure Marxist gov would be more practical.
spurgistan wrote:It seems like some of the proponents of anarchy seem to be describing what I would consider to be libertarianism (which I can't stand, but won't describe why, as this is an anarchy thread) Can you discuss some of the differences between what you want and libertarians? Anarchy does seem somewhat attractive in principle (compared to what we got, definitely), but it seems a pure Marxist gov would be more practical.
people confuse anarchism and anarcho-capitalism because they sound similar and capitalists aren't too bright
Huckleberryhound wrote:If you consider Anarchy to be a small group working independently from society, then you are not talking about anarchy at all. There are still Leaders, just because you have shut yourself away from them doesn't make them go away.
Anarchy does not mean lack of leaders- it's not a lawless free for all where everyone can do as they please.
spurgistan wrote:It seems like some of the proponents of anarchy seem to be describing what I would consider to be libertarianism (which I can't stand, but won't describe why, as this is an anarchy thread) Can you discuss some of the differences between what you want and libertarians?
Isn't anarchy a "form" of libertarianism? My understanding of what libertarian views entail is basically the creation of a society without hierarchies... a broad term encompassing many different views, built upon by varying belief systems such as anarchism (so anarchy is a libertarian belief).
neoni wrote:people confuse anarchism and anarcho-capitalism because they sound similar and capitalists aren't too bright
Yeah- well they argue it's a form of anarchism because of the abolition of state- the free market will take care of everything! Failing to take into account the reason for the dismantling of the state is the problem here. You're basically keeping the current power structure and cutting out the middle man.
Yeah - to me, if you abolish the state, the only losers are those who depend on the state for protection. I'm sure our elected officials wouldn't mind going back to their day jobs as millionaire execs.
spurgistan wrote:Yeah - to me, if you abolish the state, the only losers are those who depend on the state for protection. I'm sure our elected officials wouldn't mind going back to their day jobs as millionaire execs.
Like the poor, the elderly, the young and disabled.
spurgistan wrote:Yeah - to me, if you abolish the state, the only losers are those who depend on the state for protection. I'm sure our elected officials wouldn't mind going back to their day jobs as millionaire execs.
Like the poor, the elderly, the young and disabled.
Yeah, woot Anarchy.
That's if you embrace a sort of free market capitalism approach to anarchy, which very few lines of anarchist thought do. Also the immediate implementation of a state of anarchy after years of cultivating capitalist belief systems isn't what most anarchists aim towards. Besides that, it's entirely untenable, as people would just return to their underlying belief system and reconstruct a system similar to the one taken away.
Frigidus wrote:but now that it's become relatively popular it's suffered the usual downturn in coolness.
