NationStates Jolt Archive

I mean, C'mon! Its the ultimate secure environment!
Basicaly you get land, protection and a really cool house! All for a measly %50 of everything you grow every year.
Sure, freedom of speech and that sort of thing is a bit limited, and you might get drafted into the army against your will, handed a cheap, badly made weapon and told to 'Go take over that village', but hey, its worth it! Really!

Being a peasent would be awesome. You work outside, build strong muscles, get to use a cow as a pillow, and die of disease before it all really starts to sink in that your a miserable sack of flesh whose existance is pointless.

Yeah! Your average life expectancy is a whopping 30-40 years!!!
Can you believe it?

I am really looking forward to living in a hovel, paying extravagant taxes, never bathing, taking a crap in a hole, and shoveling manure!

I hate feudal lords. They are stupid. Why would I work for them?

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

:o Ouch. That's got to hurt . . . :lol:

I hate feudal lords. They are stupid. Why would I work for them?

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Because if you don't, you'll get hung from a tree with a sign around your neck saying you went against the will of God and didn't serve your divinely appointed master.

Why wouldn't I be a peasant? I don't know the first thing about farming.

Another advantage of peasantry is free entertainment, IE: Public executions.

Who wants to go see a hanging, drawing and quartering?

you have forgotten the benefit of having your daughters raped by the local lord on their wedding day because its his right to have first crack at every woman in the village

Yes, thats an excellent one as well!
Though unfourtunatly not all kingdoms had this particular right...

Would i want to be a peasant!!!

Why would i want to be a bird :shock:

Like I said earlier, I barely know the front of a cow from the back.

Like I said earlier, I barely know the front of a cow from the back.

The stuff goes in the front... :D

Relax Temme, being a peasant is an on the job execution, and you learn quickly as well, otherwise your stretched on the rack!
Doesnt that sound fun?

I have an allergy to pain. Thank you for asking, though.

I hate feudal lords. They are stupid. Why would I work for them?





If you were a peasant back in the middle ages you'd work if you wanted to eat and be protected. If you preferred dying of hunger or bandit attacks, then don't work.

Would i want to be a peasant!!!

Why would i want to be a bird :shock:
You're thinking of a pheasant :lol:

I hate feudal lords. They are stupid. Why would I work for them?





If you were a peasant back in the middle ages you'd work if you wanted to eat and be protected. If you preferred dying of hunger or bandit attacks, then don't work.
Well it doesn't look like much has changed. Capitalism works the same way. You're forced to work with the threat of death. Only anarcho-communism can get rid of this.

Often Letila doesn't come back to reply to your responses...figured I'd help him out. :roll:

If you were a peasant back in the middle ages you'd work if you wanted to eat and be protected. If you preferred dying of hunger or bandit attacks, then don't work.

Do you have to portray it so inaccurately?

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I hate feudal lords. They are stupid. Why would I work for them?





If you were a peasant back in the middle ages you'd work if you wanted to eat and be protected. If you preferred dying of hunger or bandit attacks, then don't work.
Well it doesn't look like much has changed. Capitalism works the same way. You're forced to work with the threat of death. Only anarcho-communism can get rid of this.

Often Letila doesn't come back to reply to your responses...figured I'd help him out. :roll:

Yes, good idea. Communism....nope, no threat of death there. (sarcasm) By the way, under a capitalist system you only have to work just enough to get money to buy food, and under the United States version you don't even have to do that! You can just say you don't have a job and get food stamps.

Also, anarchism and communism are completely different things. Communism is a government of the masses that is into every aspect of the citizen's life, while anarchy is very individualistic.

I hate feudal lords. They are stupid. Why would I work for them?





If you were a peasant back in the middle ages you'd work if you wanted to eat and be protected. If you preferred dying of hunger or bandit attacks, then don't work.
Well it doesn't look like much has changed. Capitalism works the same way. You're forced to work with the threat of death. Only anarcho-communism can get rid of this.

Often Letila doesn't come back to reply to your responses...figured I'd help him out. :roll:


How about Fascism, it can get rid of capitalism, or at least subordinate the businesses to the service of the state. People exist to service the state.

Oh, I forgot, in the Middle Ages people preffered Anarchy to a semi-safe environment...

Only anarcho-communism can get rid of this.

Yes, doing hard labor for the people's commune with no pay other than being allowed to live in the commune and given the food/clothes/shelter to survive surely sounds better than "corporate opression." I mean, I am SO dying under this opression. Free speech, minimum wage laws, abuse of welfare systems, voting for my leaders, it all sounds fairly opressive. :roll:

That is not anarcho-communism, Fluffy.

I have spoken with some Ukrainians who survived Stalin. They would rather die than have to live again under the communism that you are so willing to force on the masses. And don't tell me "Stalinism isn't real communism". Saying that we have yet to see real communism is just writing yourself a blank check to keep forcing the dictatorship of the proletariat unto us time and time again. Communism doesn't make anybody better, it just smashes the wealthy and middle class and makes them poor, and the poor feel slightly better because misery loves company. Communism is a system that doesn't really improve anybody except party members. All it does is make everybody equal, equally poor.

That is not anarcho-communism, Fluffy.

Allow me to browse some of Letila's threads and get quotes that back this up. Be back once I have completed it (which will take a long time with the server dying often)

why am i not a peasant?

because i can slap mud on top of mud with ease.
my lord took notice and promoted me to work in his house.

from there i was able to steal his fortune, then i made out of that estate fast...

no more being at the low end of the feudal system, its the high time for me!

woo

so the moral of the story is, kids, learn your government systems, know that you don't elect kings, and be able to slap mud on top of mud.

In truth we would all love to be peasants cuz its the simplest you can get without killing yourself. Id rather be the Lord though...

just thought I'd point out that I'm libertarian (almost anarch-capitalist)
hence the eyeroll
And I didn't say that anarcho-communism was the only way to get rid of capitalism- just that it's the only way to get rid of the "you have to work or else you'll starve"
As for peasants... You go ahead and I'll be lord...(not lady...I'd hate that...blech...)

with Centennia it looks like
Actually I'd hate to be lord too...
oh well whatever...

Priest is better than lord. You can guilt-trip the lord into giving you money.

And I didn't say that anarcho-communism was the only way to get rid of capitalism- just that it's the only way to get rid of the "you have to work or else you'll starve"



did you want to get rid of the "you have to work or else youll starve" thing?

I am really looking forward to living in a hovel, paying extravagant taxes, never bathing, taking a crap in a hole, and shoveling manure!

So your going to vote for Bush then, right?

Why arent you a peasant?

Because I don't live on the Channel Island of Sark. (http://www.sark-tourism.com/introduction/)

http://www.thisisguernsey.com/code/showarticle.pl?ArticleID=000042

http://www.globalcomplexity.org/Sark.htm


Is there anywhere else in the world that the feudal system still holds power?

just thought I'd point out that I'm libertarian (almost anarch-capitalist)
hence the eyeroll
And I didn't say that anarcho-communism was the only way to get rid of capitalism- just that it's the only way to get rid of the "you have to work or else you'll starve"
As for peasants... You go ahead and I'll be lord...(not lady...I'd hate that...blech...)

with Centennia it looks like
Actually I'd hate to be lord too...
oh well whatever...

But in our society, you don't even have to work. All you have to do is say that you don't have a job and the nice people at the welfare office give you food stamps.

And I didn't say that anarcho-communism was the only way to get rid of capitalism- just that it's the only way to get rid of the "you have to work or else you'll starve"



did you want to get rid of the "you have to work or else youll starve" thing?nope...I totally think that's how it should be...with a few exceptions...I don't think the government should support the exceptions either...
But in our society, you don't even have to work. All you have to do is say that you don't have a job and the nice people at the welfare office give you food stamps.yeah, that's the socialist part of our society. We aren't completely capitalists, obviously...

Would i want to be a peasant!!!

Why would i want to be a bird :shock:
You're thinking of a pheasant :lol:never the less, its still valid... some one was saying somthing abouyt lords having sex with peasant on their wedding day :shock:

i am not a peasant. i am an overworked indentured servant tied only to my family of 20 children and the land which i work on.

That is not anarcho-communism, Fluffy.

Allow me to browse some of Letila's threads and get quotes that back this up. Be back once I have completed it (which will take a long time with the server dying often)I don't know about Letila's posts, but the theory and real-life practice of Anarchism says otherwise. A member of an Anarchist society would work less and live a more comfortable and freer life then a member of a capitalist one. Let me clear up some of your misconceptions.

First of all what does 'getting paid' mean? Getting money for your work of course! What does money do? It allows you to have some access to what you need and what you want. How will this be different in anarchism? Not very different. You will work, and you will also have access to that which you need and that which you want. These things will be produced by you and your fellow workers not just in the commune in which you choose to live in but in many other communes. As less false choice will exist (1000 brands of the same badly-made crap) more real choices will emerge. Redundant production will disappear with direct and organized worker control. As most people are willing to work for luxury items (i.e. build them or work to provide the basic necessities and other luxuries for the people who do) we will still have them.

You would not vote for leaders, because there would be none as such. You would though elect recallable delegates with limited mandates to relay the decisions of your commune, workers association or militia group to a federal body composed of other such delegates.

My NS nation’s website has a brief explanation of how a possible anarchist society would be run.

http://www.geocities.com/free_outer_eugenia/
I have spoken with some Ukrainians who survived Stalin. They would rather die than have to live again under the communism that you are so willing to force on the masses. And don't tell me "Stalinism isn't real communism". Saying that we have yet to see real communism is just writing yourself a blank check to keep forcing the dictatorship of the proletariat unto us time and time again. Communism doesn't make anybody better, it just smashes the wealthy and middle class and makes them poor, and the poor feel slightly better because misery loves company. Communism is a system that doesn't really improve anybody except party members. All it does is make everybody equal, equally poor.Anarcho-communism is as far from Marxist state-socialism as one can get.

Here is a pamphlet about a famous real-life expiriment in Anarchism:

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/pam_ch1.html

I mean, C'mon! Its the ultimate secure environment!
Basicaly you get land, protection and a really cool house! All for a measly %50 of everything you grow every year.
Sure, freedom of speech and that sort of thing is a bit limited, and you might get drafted into the army against your will, handed a cheap, badly made weapon and told to 'Go take over that village', but hey, its worth it! Really!

Sure...now, back into the factories with you, proletarian dog! :wink: :)

As to the people which seem to believe that anarcho-communism is the way ahead, I call upon you to show me one way, just one way, it will work. There is no possible system of government or economics inferior to anarchism.

Communist Dictatorship? Superior. (Admittedly, not by much.)

Socialist Democracy? Superior.

Capitalist Dictatorship? Superior. (Admittedly, not by much.))

Capitalist Democracy? Superior.

Corporatist Dictatorship? Superior. (As above. Such a thing as too much government, I suppose.))

Corporatist Democracy? Superior, if I can think of any where active Corporatism is practiced in this day and age... Singapore? United States of America?

I challenge you to provide me with an example of anarchism working. If it's such an amazing idealogy, why was it crushed so easily in the Ukraine? You'd think that the Bolsheviks would have converted rapidly if it was good. In Catalonia, anarcho-syndicalism was probably one of the direct causes of the fall of the Spanish Republic.

Anarchism is a foolish, sentimental, overly hopeful idealogy. One of the few things Marx was right about was getting rid of Bakunin.

In Catalonia, anarcho-syndicalism was probably one of the direct causes of the fall of the Spanish Republic.
It was actually the fault of the Stalinists who withheld Russian arms from the front, and along with the knuckle-dragging republicans and social democrats fought against the social revolution rahter than Franco while being too afraid to offend England and France to take decisive action against the facsists. The big mistake of the CNT-FAI was that they hesitated to sieze the gold reserves and to smash the state while it was powerless.

Here is a pamphlet about a famous real-life expiriment in Anarchism:

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/pam_ch1.html



I know all about the Spanish Civil war and the history behind it. The only government that is really desirable is a one-party rightist state. Ultimately that is what all nations will become, it is just a matter of right wing for who (There are many right wing blacks, right wing whites, right wing jews, etc). It is a matter of "Whose right wing). I'd prefer it be my Right Wing. I have my own custom political ideology.

I'm viciously anti-democratic, anti-parliamentary, etc. I'd say try to use the freedoms inherent in democracy to tear down the system and set up the right wing government.

In Catalonia, anarcho-syndicalism was probably one of the direct causes of the fall of the Spanish Republic.
It was actually the fault of the Stalinists who withheld Russian arms from the front, and along with the knuckle-dragging republicans and social democrats fought against the social revolution rahter than Franco while being too afraid to offend England and France to take decisive action against the facsists. The big mistake of the CNT-FAI was that they hesitated to sieze the gold reserves and to smash the state while it was powerless.

Wrong. If they had 'smashed the state', Franco would have won even more easily.

Because *everyone* would have supported him, including the democracies.

One more thing, FOE. I want a response to my claim that all other forms of government and economy are superior. You and Letila both persist in avoiding that argument, and I will not have it any more.

I want exact statements on how anarchism is superior, and I'd like them ASAP. From you two, not from some hippy professor.

One more thing, FOE. I want a response to my claim that all other forms of government and economy are superior. You and Letila both persist in avoiding that argument, and I will not have it any more.

I want exact statements on how anarchism is superior, and I'd like them ASAP. From you two, not from some hippy professor.How do you know that I am not some hippie professor? :lol:

Anarchism has been shown to be a highly effeicient economic model. It does not suffer from the centralized inertia that a centralized economy suffers from and the redundent and pointless production of capitalism is also removed.


On a socio-political level there is the whole freedom and democracy thing. Maybe you're not a fan of it. I like freedom and democracy. Real freedom and democracy mind you, not the slavery and tyranny that capitalism and authoreterian communist sells under those names. In my opinion, Anarchism makes the right distinctions between the personal and the collective.

In Catalonia, anarcho-syndicalism was probably one of the direct causes of the fall of the Spanish Republic.
It was actually the fault of the Stalinists who withheld Russian arms from the front, and along with the knuckle-dragging republicans and social democrats fought against the social revolution rahter than Franco while being too afraid to offend England and France to take decisive action against the facsists. The big mistake of the CNT-FAI was that they hesitated to sieze the gold reserves and to smash the state while it was powerless.

Because *everyone* would have supported him, including the democracies. The 'democracies' were supporting him by not giving aid to the resistance. Had the social revolution been more militant and worked with French workers across the border, the twentieth century might have turned out differently.

Yeah, you're just a drone at a dictators's disposal. That's real fun! :lol:

The 'democracies' were supporting him by not giving aid to the resistance



The resistance was nothing more than thugs, terrorists, murderers, rapists, and the criminally insane. The accounts of what the Anarchists did to the clergy are numerous and awful. The rape of nuns, massacres of priests. I thank GOD that Francisco Franco won and saved Spain from utter ruin.


El Caudillo
El Caudillo
El Caudillo

How do you know that I am not some hippie professor? :lol:

I don't. How do *you* know I'm not Vice-President Lee of Singapore?

Anarchism has been shown to be a highly effeicient economic model. It does not suffer from the centralized inertia that a centralized economy suffers from and the redundent and pointless production of capitalism is also removed.

One could also say the same thing of Corporatism and National Syndicalism, both of which are diametrically opposed to anarchism. They also do a fairer job of increasing quality, because the competitive machinery of the free market is not eliminated.


On a socio-political level there is the whole freedom and democracy thing. Maybe you're not a fan of it. I like freedom and democracy. Real freedom and democracy mind you, not the slavery and tyranny that capitalism and authoreterian communist sells under those names. In my opinion, Anarchism makes the right distinctions between the personal and the collective.

Ah...Organic Democracy? Again...the same thing happens, technically, under Fascism. Rule of the majority. But of course, you'd know that.

Real democracy is mob rule. That's why there are checks and balances. I will not sit here and let myself be called an opponent of freedom and democracy, when by my arguments I am defending not just the majority, but also minorities. Are you saying that black Americans and Jews don't deserve to have their voices heard because they are in the minority?

Placing too much strength on personal responsibility is dangerous. Placing too much strength in the government is dangerous.

That's why, regardless of my personal feelings, the democratic system we have works.

The 'democracies' were supporting him by not giving aid to the resistance



The resistance was nothing more than thugs, terrorists, murderers, rapists, and the criminally insane. The accounts of what the Anarchists did to the clergy are numerous and awful. The rape of nuns, massacres of priests. I thank GOD that Francisco Franco won and saved Spain from utter ruin.


El Caudillo
El Caudillo
El Caudillo

Senor...while I agree with you on broad principles, I must point out that the Nationalists also engaged in fairly heavy purges themselves. And what of Bishop Unamuno?

One could also say the same thing of Corporatism and National Syndicalism, both of which are diametrically opposed to anarchism. "The trains ran on time under Hitler" is a stock phrase while "the trains ran on time in Catalonia" isn't in very wide circulation. Just thought that it was worth pointing out. There are other problems that I have with facsim. Never heard of 'National Syndicalism' though. Care to school me?

They also do a fairer job of increasing quality, because the competitive machinery of the free market is not eliminated. Whether the competitive machienery of the unchecked slave market is good for overall quality is very debatable. The quality of goods in Catalonia showed a marked increase with the elimination of the market.



Rule of the majority.Who said anything about 'rule of the majority?'

Real democracy is mob rule. That's why there are checks and balances. Different sectors of capital vying for an edge disguised as 'checks and ballances' does nothing for the interests of otherwise powerless minorities. "Checks and ballances" did nothing for dark skinned folk in American society until the hearts and minds of enough whites were swayed. And I never said anything about disregarding minorities. This is where personal autonomy comes in. [/quote]

I will not sit here and let myself be called an opponent of freedom and democracy, when by my arguments I am defending not just the majority, but also minorities. Then stand up. Why so deffensive? My question as to whether or not you were a fan of freedom and democracy was not rhetorical.

I mean, C'mon! Its the ultimate secure environment!
Basicaly you get land, protection and a really cool house! All for a measly %50 of everything you grow every year.
Sure, freedom of speech and that sort of thing is a bit limited, and you might get drafted into the army against your will, handed a cheap, badly made weapon and told to 'Go take over that village', but hey, its worth it! Really!

I appreciate the sentiment man, but that's really not cool. You just stole that from the GOP platform of 1964 and passed it off as your own. Next time, cite your sources.

Yeah! Your average life expectancy is a whopping 30-40 years!!!
Can you believe it?

um, i once heard of a guy who lived too by over 110 years old! and i would escape to that other country over the that way *assumes he is chinese peasent, so he points east* America! they have some thing about Elections :roll:

I mean, C'mon! Its the ultimate secure environment!
Basicaly you get land, protection and a really cool house! All for a measly %50 of everything you grow every year.
Sure, freedom of speech and that sort of thing is a bit limited, and you might get drafted into the army against your will, handed a cheap, badly made weapon and told to 'Go take over that village', but hey, its worth it! Really!

Do i really want to be a constant risk of expose to life threataning diseases because i can't be arsed to get vaccinated? :roll:

"The trains ran on time under Hitler" is a stock phrase while "the trains ran on time in Catalonia" isn't in very wide circulation. Just thought that it was worth pointing out. There are other problems that I have with facsim. Never heard of 'National Syndicalism' though. Care to school me?

Portugal under Salazar would be the first example that comes to mind. Pretty much the same as Corporatism, though more devoted to keeping things the same than to forming some sort of new and better world.

Not to up to speed...National Syndicalism is a bit more Conservative than Fascism/Corporatism. BTW, it's 'the trains ran on time under Mussolini', and if you've ever been to Italy you'd know that's quite an accomplishment. :wink:

Hitler created the Autobahns; Stalin brought Russia into the twentieth century. Does that make them good people? Hell no. But those could only have been accomplished under a strong government.

Whether the competitive machienery of the unchecked slave market is good for overall quality is very debatable. The quality of goods in Catalonia showed a marked increase with the elimination of the market.

Not over all, though. Mainly in heavy industry and agriculture. Textiles and service industries also didn't do well.


Who said anything about 'rule of the majority?'

Interesting...rule by who, then? Isn't that what democracy is? I'm now a bit confused.

Different sectors of capital vying for an edge disguised as 'checks and ballances' does nothing for the interests of otherwise powerless minorities. "Checks and ballances" did nothing for dark skinned folk in American society until the hearts and minds of enough whites were swayed. And I never said anything about disregarding minorities. This is where personal autonomy comes in.

Personal autonomy can *not* be allowed to take precedence over the interests of the nation/people/organisation as a whole. Down that road lies anarchy, not anarchism (though they have more in common than you're willing to admit.))

People are not inherently nice. The great majority of people are inherently self-interested. Laws and punishments make it in their self-interest to treat their fellow man well. Without laws and punishments, who knows where it will lead?

Then stand up. Why so deffensive? My question as to whether or not you were a fan of freedom and democracy was not rhetorical.

Fine. I'll be blunt. I am a huge fan of the current status quo, which is, to me, freedom and democracy. I'd note you never proved to me that anarchism won't become mob rule or an organic democracy like Nazi Germany.

I mean, C'mon! Its the ultimate secure environment!
Basicaly you get land, protection and a really cool house! All for a measly %50 of everything you grow every year.
Sure, freedom of speech and that sort of thing is a bit limited, and you might get drafted into the army against your will, handed a cheap, badly made weapon and told to 'Go take over that village', but hey, its worth it! Really!

Fined if you send a child to be educated, fined if you have an illegitamate son, fined if you injure yourself, fined for all sorts of other stupid reasons. Your harvest could be wrecked by weather if you have to harvest the lords crops on the only good days in the year. Cannot move around, cannot buy clothes you would want, even if you could afford them. And it wasn't "go take that village" it would be "Go charge those cannon" or rampart etc. anything that would result in near certain death.

I'd note you never proved to me that anarchism won't become mob rule or an organic democracy like Nazi Germany.Simple: No centralized government. If you don't like your collective, then leave go live in another one. Then there is the consesus nased decision-making bit. collectives/indaviduals must either find a proportional compromise w/ all elements, or go their seperate ways.

I'd note you never proved to me that anarchism won't become mob rule or an organic democracy like Nazi Germany.Simple: No centralized government. If you don't like your collective, then leave go live in another one. Then there is the consesus nased decision-making bit. collectives/indaviduals must either find a proportional compromise w/ all elements, or go their seperate ways.

So, it won't become an organic democracy. But mob rule isn't particularly centralized either. And if there are any communities, there will be leaders, no?

I'm open to be converted, FOE. Seriously now. Prove to me that anarchism is viable in all sectors, and I will apologise for any doubts or insults I may have cast its way over the years.

Yeah, like corporate democracy really is viable in all sectors :roll:

I'd note you never proved to me that anarchism won't become mob rule or an organic democracy like Nazi Germany.Simple: No centralized government. If you don't like your collective, then leave go live in another one. Then there is the consesus nased decision-making bit. collectives/indaviduals must either find a proportional compromise w/ all elements, or go their seperate ways.

So, it won't become an organic democracy. But mob rule isn't particularly centralized either. And if there are any communities, there will be leaders, no?

I'm open to be converted, FOE. Seriously now. Prove to me that anarchism is viable in all sectors, and I will apologise for any doubts or insults I may have cast its way over the years.I'm not looking to 'convert' anyone. I don't come to these forums to bait facsists, racists, Americans, Jews, Arabs, the French, Stalinists, Social Democrats, Bhuddists, Catholics or Sceintologists. Nor do I ever seriously try to changeanyone's conception about how the world works. It would be suppreme arrogance to ssume that I could do through a silly little forum what only life and experiance can truly do. The best i can hope for is for the other fellow to understand me, and for me to understand him or her. This is in itself highly unlikely in this environment.

And doubts don't require appologies. Neither do insults thrown at an ideology. You can't hurt an ideology's feelings.

And if communities require leaders, then let all of the members of a community be leaders.

If (wo)man is so inept that (s)he cannot rule himself and must be ruled, how can (wo)man then rule over others?

Who said anything about 'rule of the majority?'
Interesting...rule by who, then? Isn't that what democracy is? I'm now a bit confused.
Rule by the guy who was elected by the majority but ignored them afterwards.

If (wo)man is so inept that (s)he cannot rule himself and must be ruled, how can (wo)man then rule over others?
People are different. Each has his/her own abilities and disabilities. Some are, by nature, better suited to be leaders than others.

Problem is, you do you find these individuals?

One more thing, FOE. I want a response to my claim that all other forms of government and economy are superior. You and Letila both persist in avoiding that argument, and I will not have it any more.

I want exact statements on how anarchism is superior, and I'd like them ASAP. From you two, not from some hippy professor.How do you know that I am not some hippie professor? :lol:

Anarchism has been shown to be a highly effeicient economic model. It does not suffer from the centralized inertia that a centralized economy suffers from and the redundent and pointless production of capitalism is also removed.


On a socio-political level there is the whole freedom and democracy thing. Maybe you're not a fan of it. I like freedom and democracy. Real freedom and democracy mind you, not the slavery and tyranny that capitalism and authoreterian communist sells under those names. In my opinion, Anarchism makes the right distinctions between the personal and the collective.
Anarcho-communism might have worked better than whatever the Spanish had previously (without being an expert I doubt they ever had a free market, probably some sort of corporate state or feudal type thing - you lefties can't seem to tell the difference). However, even this was in the short run. Communism is like cutting down the trees to get the coconuts. Sure you have more today, but what about next year?

What have freedom and democracy to do with each other? How is submitting to rule of the majority a sign of freedom? Historically speaking can you point at a democracy which respected freedom? Even 19th century America, one of the freest societies ever (for white middle-class men anyway) was simply on the first step on the road to the modern state. Democracy is just competitive totalitarianism.

probably some sort of corporate state or feudal type thing - you lefties can't seem to tell the difference
Apparantly, neither can you.