NationStates Jolt Archive

anarchist are morons.

no worse than people of any other political persuasion.

actually, i find anarchists on the whole to be some of the more intelligent people around.
well if they think people can function properly without a government, then they've got another thing coming to them.

well if they think people can function properly without a government, then they've got another thing coming to them.

totally. 'cause me and some people were trying to figure out where to eat the other day, and if that police man hadn't ordered us to go to mcdonald's we'd have starved. or beaten each other to death.

seriously, most human interaction currently happens outside of the watchful gaze of the state. and the state didn't even exist for the vast majority of human history. the necessity of authority is highly overstated.

Anarchy cannot exist without the removal of duality.

He basically believes in the saying "My country, love it or leave it." He insists that if someone is rich and doesn't work, "they already did their work." He also believes that investing in the stock market is work because it supports the economy. He certainly doesn't have any socialist or communist leanings.

already did their work?! investing is work?! wtf dude, that's crazy talk, that is.

lots of things "support the economy". such as spray painting buildings (they do get cleaned, which means more money circulating and more jobs and such).

Or, as Keynes pointed out: the government burying money in jars and letting those that labour to extract it from the ground take it home as pay. An argument can also be made that the great unwashed legions of the unemployed also stimulate the economy as they consume without producing anything...

Anarchy cannot exist without the removal of duality.

which duality in particular? mind/body? wave/particle?

anarchist are morons.

no worse than people of any other political persuasion.

actually, i find anarchists on the whole to be some of the more intelligent people around.
well if they think people can function properly without a government, then they've got another thing coming to them.

People function on a day to day basis without any interaction with their government and there seems to be no problem. The only difference between a government with a set of enforced rules and a society with mutually accepted rules is the necessity of force. Because this entire debate is hypothetical we can fiat the necessary social changes to allow people to exist without the need for rule enforcement outside of personal abhoration for certain actions.

Also, misguided or dillusional are not the same as moronic. Choose your words wisely around here or they're liable to bite you in the ass.

Anarchy cannot exist without the removal of duality.

which duality in particular? mind/body? wave/particle?

The concept. Authority is rooted in power. Power is a comparison of a given ability. By comparing, you have duality.

As long as there is thought of greater or lesser, there will be power and from power comes authority and rule.

Might does not make right, but it does make the rules.

The concept. Authority is rooted in power. Power is a comparison of a given ability. By comparing, you have duality.

As long as there is thought of greater or lesser, there will be power and from power comes authority and rule.

Might does not make right, but it does make the rules.

I draw a different distinction between power and authority: poltical power is rooted, fundamentally in the threat of recourse to physical force, while authority is the legitimate right of control over something. Thus the British government has power over me, but I do not recognise their authority. The agents of the state apparatus can kick in my door and drag me to wherever and make me do whatever - that is definitely within their power - but it is not within their authority.

Authority cannot be taken from one individual by another, however it can be granted. Thus, you cannot take authority from me, but I could grant you the authority to watch over me and protect me or the authority to look after my finances.

Power is taken: authority is granted.

The concept. Authority is rooted in power. Power is a comparison of a given ability. By comparing, you have duality.

As long as there is thought of greater or lesser, there will be power and from power comes authority and rule.

Might does not make right, but it does make the rules.

I draw a different distinction between power and authority: poltical power is rooted, fundamentally in the threat of recourse to physical force, while authority is the legitimate right of control over something. Thus the British government has power over me, but I do not recognise their authority. The agents of the state apparatus can kick in my door and drag me to wherever and make me do whatever - that is definitely within their power - but it is not within their authority.

Authority cannot be taken from one individual by another, however it can be granted. Thus, you cannot take authority from me, but I could grant you the authority to watch over me and protect me or the authority to look after my finances.

Power is taken: authority is granted.

I was referring to Authority as an entity which can exact obedience. I have not acquired the jargon of the anarchist community, and am thus prone to misinterpretation.

However, to my understanding, anarchy is a lack of rule. Rule is a calcified vertical relationship, willing or otherwise. Whether this can exist in an interdependant group is not an issue for me at the moment. Vertical relationship is the heart of rule. So long as there is vertical relationship, rule will eventually form. Vertical relationship is formed as long as there is comparison of ability (power). Therefore, the existance of rule is wholly dependant upon comparison.

anarchist are morons.

Uh-huh.

Does some research.

Oh: look what we find written by Pagotas in another thread today: Pagotas basking in the glory of the last time (s)he got IP banned...


i know, one huge rampage of flamming can be great. and with some serious quote pyrimads, and spam and a nastry telegram to a mod! fun fun!

Don't feed the troll.

anarchist are morons.

no worse than people of any other political persuasion.

actually, i find anarchists on the whole to be some of the more intelligent people around. Have you any idea what anarchy is?

Well, amarchists can (but not always) be smart; it can depend on what side of the political spectrum the person views someone from. For example, a fascist might view a liberal (regular left) as anarchist because since they are so right-shifted in the spectrum, that shifts to the left (for the fascist) would be disproportionally large to them

Well, amarchists can (but not always) be smart; it can depend on what side of the political spectrum the person views someone from. For example, a fascist might view a liberal (regular left) as anarchist because since they are so right-shifted in the spectrum, that shifts to the left (for the fascist) would be disproportionally large to them Ah.

Have you any idea what anarchy is?

Yes. The real question is: Do you?

And secondly, you plan to oppress people into not being oppressed? I hope that I need not point out the intrinsic flaw in that reasoning.

The revolution will target those in power, not the average person, who will be revolting.

already did their work?! investing is work?! wtf dude, that's crazy talk, that is.

I know, but he claims they had to work for the money to invest and that they have to be very smart to invest it properly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<html><body>
<b>Free your mind!</b>
<i>You can fight back.</i>
</body></html>
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

And secondly, you plan to oppress people into not being oppressed? I hope that I need not point out the intrinsic flaw in that reasoning.

The revolution will target those in power, not the average person, who will be revolting.

I can't believe this thread has got to sixrty-something pages without a chance for someone to make a "the peasents are revolting" joke. I knew it would come eventually.

Have any of you sucessfully argued with someone on anarchism?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<html><body>
<b>Free your mind!</b>
<i>You can fight back.</i>
</body></html>
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

And secondly, you plan to oppress people into not being oppressed? I hope that I need not point out the intrinsic flaw in that reasoning.

no. we plan to end oppression - by force if necessary (personally i'd prefer it didn't, but somehow i don't see the ruling class and the bosses just backing down).

imagine a person holding a bunch of other people hostage. is it 'oppression' to hit that person to free the others?

If you think it is that simple than you are a fool. Revolution as a social and political tool manipulates people and destroys existing institutions. This is coercive. It forces people to assume certain roles. What of those who didnt want to participate in your revolution?

It all sounds very coercive to me.....

What of those who didnt want to participate in your revolution?
They can do what they please. I assure you that without extensive state violance capitalism would collapse and 'those who don't want to participate' will certainly have to find a new niche much like both the liberated slaves and slavemasters had to do after the civil war.

What of those who didnt want to participate in your revolution?
They can do what they please. I assure you that without extensive state violance capitalism would collapse and 'those who don't want to participate' will certainly have to find a new niche much like both the liberated slaves and slavemasters had to do after the civil war.

How foolishly optimistic of you. :roll:

What of those who didnt want to participate in your revolution?
They can do what they please. I assure you that without extensive state violance capitalism would collapse and 'those who don't want to participate' will certainly have to find a new niche much like both the liberated slaves and slavemasters had to do after the civil war.

How foolishly optimistic of you. :roll:How so?

Have any of you sucessfully argued with someone on anarchism?

depends what you mean. you will never convince someone who holds some position to switch to your's with a single argument no matter how good your argument is - people don't lightly change their underlying beliefs and values. the best you can really ask for is to leave people thinking, and to open them to the possibility.

on the other hand, a friend of mine wasn't an anarchist when i first met him and now he is fairly routinely contacted by the media for anarchist opinions when there is an protest event of some sort. i can't take full credit for his conversion - i actually don't know when or why he made the switch - but i like to think i helped.

If you think it is that simple than you are a fool. Revolution as a social and political tool manipulates people and destroys existing institutions. This is coercive. It forces people to assume certain roles. What of those who didnt want to participate in your revolution?

It all sounds very coercive to me.....

are you taking the stance that all revolutions are bad? are there no circumstances that warrant revolutionary change? if the institutions of a society are oppressive, there is nothing to do but revolt against them and set up new ones. and coercing the source of oppression is not wrong.

besides, an anarchist revolution is mainly a social revolution, which can only be undertaken when a majority (or a well organized and significant minority) wants it. the actual violence always comes from the forces of reaction, who don't take kindly to our occupying the factories and disbanding the institutions of authority. but the people who are not actually with us, but aren't the rulers and bosses have nothing to fear and nothing to lose - unless the rulers decide to be slightly less than discriminating when they "restore order".

What of those who didnt want to participate in your revolution?
They can do what they please. I assure you that without extensive state violance capitalism would collapse and 'those who don't want to participate' will certainly have to find a new niche much like both the liberated slaves and slavemasters had to do after the civil war.

I don't think I buy this. Essential to any capitalist system is the concept of property; unless the 'revolutionaries' are willing to redistribute property is such a way that those who wish to eschew a socialist system recieve relatively equal allocations compared to those that pool these allocations collectively, you will effectively starve off capitalism; while this may seem like a good idea, any choice that involves 'submit to this system or starve' seems inherently wrong and not much of a choice at all.

What of those who didnt want to participate in your revolution?
They can do what they please. I assure you that without extensive state violance capitalism would collapse and 'those who don't want to participate' will certainly have to find a new niche much like both the liberated slaves and slavemasters had to do after the civil war.

Essential to any capitalist system is the concept of property. Indeed, and the institution of 'property' is enforced by the muscle of the state. If there is no state, there is no property. Some of the first acts of the social revolution will be the burning of all deeds, bank records, etc. Without the armed goons to enforce property and without the papers to keep track of it, capitalism would suddenly become defunct. It takes coersion to keep capitalism in existance, it takes the removal of coersion to break capitalism.

What of those who didnt want to participate in your revolution?
They can do what they please. I assure you that without extensive state violance capitalism would collapse and 'those who don't want to participate' will certainly have to find a new niche much like both the liberated slaves and slavemasters had to do after the civil war.

Essential to any capitalist system is the concept of property. Indeed, and the institution of 'property' is enforced by the muscle of the state. If there is no state, there is no property. Some of the first acts of the social revolution will be the burning of all deeds, bank records, etc. Without the armed goons to enforce property and without the papers to keep track of it, capitalism would suddenly become defunct. It takes coersion to keep capitalism in existance, it takes the removal of coersion to break capitalism.

Alright, but lets just say, for the sake of argument, that after we get rid of the former capitalist order, we get a few people that still suscribe to the idea. How can you legitimately say they shouldn't be allowed to live their lives as they wish, yet legitimately claim to value personal freedom? I don't think you can really say that noone will want to be capitalist, given the choice - even if it's a small minority, who are you to forbid them from living their lives?

What of those who didnt want to participate in your revolution?
They can do what they please. I assure you that without extensive state violance capitalism would collapse and 'those who don't want to participate' will certainly have to find a new niche much like both the liberated slaves and slavemasters had to do after the civil war.

Essential to any capitalist system is the concept of property. Indeed, and the institution of 'property' is enforced by the muscle of the state. If there is no state, there is no property. Some of the first acts of the social revolution will be the burning of all deeds, bank records, etc. Without the armed goons to enforce property and without the papers to keep track of it, capitalism would suddenly become defunct. It takes coersion to keep capitalism in existance, it takes the removal of coersion to break capitalism.

Alright, but lets just say, for the sake of argument, that after we get rid of the former capitalist order, we get a few people that still suscribe to the idea. How can you legitimately say they shouldn't be allowed to live their lives as they wish, yet legitimately claim to value personal freedom? I don't think you can really say that noone will want to be capitalist, given the choice - even if it's a small minority, who are you to forbid them from living their lives?

They can still want to be a capitalist, but they won't be able to because they won't be able to find anyone to exploit (which, face it, is a prerequisit of capitalism). This is assuming that there will still be currency, otherwise the wage system might be difficult to implement.

They can still want to be a capitalist, but they won't be able to because they won't be able to find anyone to exploit (which, face it, is a prerequisit of capitalism). This is assuming that there will still be currency, otherwise the wage system might be difficult to implement.

Okay, but there's a lot of people that don't see capitalism as exploitation. I'm sure there would be some people who would prefer the meritocracy of capitalism to the egalitarianism of anarchy. I don't think anyone should try and make claims of what people will be like or want to do given an absence of state power; I think at least some will be interested in a capitalist society.

As for currency, I would think that if capitalists did in fact exist, they could always make their own (probably a valued based, maybe gold, currency, and certainly not a fiat currency). Also, I think even in an anarchy currency would be very helpful.

Okay, but there's a lot of people that don't see capitalism as exploitation. I'm sure there would be some people who would prefer the meritocracy of capitalism to the egalitarianism of anarchy. I don't think anyone should try and make claims of what people will be like or want to do given an absence of state power; I think at least some will be interested in a capitalist society

They would see the benefits of anarchism in action. I suspect that within a few decades, the working class that remained would have pretty much abandonned the capitalists unless forced.

No such thing. Even Algonquian societies, which are usually said to be heavy on egalitarianism, are only egalitarian in monetary terms: they never had money or wealth per se. But they still had social classes, based on one's occuption and accomplishments; among the old Cheyenne, e.g., the warrior was the highest status one could hold. Humans seem hardwired to live in societies divided by class; and that's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as class is based in some way on one's doings and not completely one's birth.

This was posted on another forum. How do I argue against that?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<html><body>
<b>Free your mind!</b>
<i>You can fight back.</i>
</body></html>
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

If you think it is that simple than you are a fool. Revolution as a social and political tool manipulates people and destroys existing institutions. This is coercive. It forces people to assume certain roles. What of those who didnt want to participate in your revolution?

It all sounds very coercive to me.....

are you taking the stance that all revolutions are bad? are there no circumstances that warrant revolutionary change? if the institutions of a society are oppressive, there is nothing to do but revolt against them and set up new ones. and coercing the source of oppression is not wrong.

besides, an anarchist revolution is mainly a social revolution, which can only be undertaken when a majority (or a well organized and significant minority) wants it. the actual violence always comes from the forces of reaction, who don't take kindly to our occupying the factories and disbanding the institutions of authority. but the people who are not actually with us, but aren't the rulers and bosses have nothing to fear and nothing to lose - unless the rulers decide to be slightly less than discriminating when they "restore order".

What a load of ideolized tripe! You think that you can disperse a whole class, no make that several whole classes of people non-violently AND without sending shock waves through the rest of society? What happens to one class will necessarily affect all the others. And to see all of this done at the behest of a "well organized majority"? That is horrifically undemocratic and coercive. I thought you anarchists were about freedom but now you strike your true colors. You are no better than the Nazi or Bloshevik thugs of the last century.

The very methodology you recommend would shatter the freedom of countless individuals who did not cooperate with your revolution. All in the name of the revolution. You are a hypocrite and your proposal is dangerous. Its not a wonder your ideology is veiwed with such distrust! You would have us repeat the mistakes of the Russians, the Chinese and countless other nations forced to suffer for a childish intellectual abstraction.

What a load of ideolized tripe! You think that you can disperse a whole class, no make that several whole classes of people non-violently AND without sending shock waves through the rest of society? What happens to one class will necessarily affect all the others. And to see all of this done at the behest of a "well organized majority"? That is horrifically undemocratic and coercive. I thought you anarchists were about freedom but now you strike your true colors. You are no better than the Nazi or Bloshevik thugs of the last century.

The very methodology you recommend would shatter the freedom of countless individuals who did not cooperate with your revolution. All in the name of the revolution. You are a hypocrite and your proposal is dangerous. Its not a wonder your ideology is veiwed with such distrust! You would have us repeat the mistakes of the Russians, the Chinese and countless other nations forced to suffer for a childish intellectual abstraction.

So it's better to allow people to suffer under hierarchy? Governments and capitalism kill more people than the revolution would.

------------------------
Free your mind!

I thought you anarchists were about freedom but now you strike your true colors. You are no better than the Nazi or Bloshevik thugs of the last century.

Not all of us condone violent revolution or visualise any 'anarchist revolution' as a violent one. This is not to say that I am automatically and ideologically a pacifist, but putting people up against the wall doesn't seem like the best solution to our current problems.

One of the problems with the anarchist movement is the tendency for vanguardist currents to arise: they are just authoritarians dressed in the garb of anarchists, nothing more nothing less, and as such should be viewed as enemies of the movement as a whole.

I thought you anarchists were about freedom but now you strike your true colors. You are no better than the Nazi or Bloshevik thugs of the last century.


So it's better to allow people to suffer under hierarchy? Governments and capitalism kill more people than the revolution would.

It is all very well for you as an individual to decide that it is better for you to die on your feet than to live on your knees, but once you start making this decision for others, then you have obviously lost your way.

Are you familiar with the expression from the Vietnam war - "In order to save the village we had to destroy it", or the similar medical saying "The operation was a success but the patient died"?

It is all very well for you as an individual to decide that it is better for you to die on your feet than to live on your knees, but once you start making this decision for others, then you have obviously lost your way.

Sorry. That wasn't what I meant. I was saying that the many forces of authority have done more harm than a revolution would do. I certainly don't advocate forcing people to fight.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<html><body>
<b>Free your mind!</b>
<i>You can fight back.</i>
</body></html>
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

What a load of ideolized tripe! You think that you can disperse a whole class, no make that several whole classes of people non-violently AND without sending shock waves through the rest of society? What happens to one class will necessarily affect all the others. And to see all of this done at the behest of a "well organized majority"? That is horrifically undemocratic and coercive. I thought you anarchists were about freedom but now you strike your true colors. You are no better than the Nazi or Bloshevik thugs of the last century.

The very methodology you recommend would shatter the freedom of countless individuals who did not cooperate with your revolution. All in the name of the revolution. You are a hypocrite and your proposal is dangerous. Its not a wonder your ideology is veiwed with such distrust! You would have us repeat the mistakes of the Russians, the Chinese and countless other nations forced to suffer for a childish intellectual abstraction.

you didn't answer my question. are there any circumstances where revolutionary change is justified? cause if there are, then we can argue over what those circumstance are. and if there aren't, well then we have a fundamental disagreement over the nature of politics and social relations.

Not all of us condone violent revolution or visualise any 'anarchist revolution' as a violent one. This is not to say that I am automatically and ideologically a pacifist, but putting people up against the wall doesn't seem like the best solution to our current problems.

indeed. the only real violence in the revolution i envision would come from the hands of the state and the bosses private enforcers. now when they attack we aren't going to refrain from defending ourselves, but its not like we are going to take all the rich people out back and shoot them. i'm out to destroy the social relations of power and privilege, not the people who currently hold them.

What a load of ideolized tripe! You think that you can disperse a whole class, no make that several whole classes of people non-violently AND without sending shock waves through the rest of society? What happens to one class will necessarily affect all the others. And to see all of this done at the behest of a "well organized majority"? That is horrifically undemocratic and coercive. I thought you anarchists were about freedom but now you strike your true colors. You are no better than the Nazi or Bloshevik thugs of the last century.

The very methodology you recommend would shatter the freedom of countless individuals who did not cooperate with your revolution. All in the name of the revolution. You are a hypocrite and your proposal is dangerous. Its not a wonder your ideology is veiwed with such distrust! You would have us repeat the mistakes of the Russians, the Chinese and countless other nations forced to suffer for a childish intellectual abstraction.

you didn't answer my question. are there any circumstances where revolutionary change is justified? cause if there are, then we can argue over what those circumstance are. and if there aren't, well then we have a fundamental disagreement over the nature of politics and social relations.

According to anarchist thought any type of coercion is wrong. By your ideology any form of revolutionary change that would involve coercion is wrong.

According to anarchist thought any type of coercion is wrong. By your ideology any form of revolutionary change that would involve coercion is wrong.

How is it coersion? We won't force people to join us. They will be given a choice. The violence and coersion will come from the ruling class, as it always has, even now. I'm guessing that you envision anarchists forcing workers to join anarchism or die, when in reality, the people in power would be forcing the workers to submit or die.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<html><body>
<b>Free your mind!</b>
<i>You can fight back.</i>
</body></html>
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

According to anarchist thought any type of coercion is wrong. By your ideology any form of revolutionary change that would involve coercion is wrong.

no. not "any type". besides, coercion is already all around us. it is the foundation on which class society rests. we mean to stop it.

you aren't likely to stop somebody from swinging a stick at you by asking nicely. you have to stop them and take their stick away. and if you want to call stopping them 'coercion', then i am not against 'coercion' - and neither is anybody else (except maybe for some fairly hardcore pacifists).

so you gonna answer the question?

According to anarchist thought any type of coercion is wrong. By your ideology any form of revolutionary change that would involve coercion is wrong.

no. not "any type". besides, coercion is already all around us. it is the foundation on which class society rests. we mean to stop it.

you aren't likely to stop somebody from swinging a stick at you by asking nicely. you have to stop them and take their stick away. and if you want to call stopping them 'coercion', then i am not against 'coercion' - and neither is anybody else (except maybe for some fairly hardcore pacifists).

so you gonna answer the question?

Some anarchist you are. Forcing people to be free. But then perhaps I misunderstand. What type of coercion is considered acceptable to "lovers of freedom" like yourselves?

And we are not talking about my veiws of the validity of revolution. We are talking about whether or not an anarchist revolution is justified.

Some anarchist you are. Forcing people to be free. But then perhaps I misunderstand. What type of coercion is considered acceptable to "lovers of freedom" like yourselves?

How are we forcing people to be free?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<html><body>
<b>Free your mind!</b>
<i>You can fight back.</i>
</body></html>
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Some anarchist you are. Forcing people to be free. But then perhaps I misunderstand. What type of coercion is considered acceptable to "lovers of freedom" like yourselves?

the type where we kick the bosses out of the workplaces and disband the state and its police and military (though the people themselves are welcome to stay on as equals). essentially the minimum necessary to begin and maintain the social revolution against the forces of power and privilege.

Some anarchist you are. Forcing people to be free. But then perhaps I misunderstand. What type of coercion is considered acceptable to "lovers of freedom" like yourselves?

the type where we kick the bosses out of the workplaces and disband the state and its police and military (though the people themselves are welcome to stay on as equals). essentially the minimum necessary to begin and maintain the social revolution against the forces of power and privilege.

It is still coercion. You have destroyed the livelyhood of the people in said positions. You have also denied people the right to be protected by the aforesaid institutions. And what of those who fight against you? Would you allow them the freedom to crush your revolution? Or would you force them to cooperate? And once the revolution took place how would you stop these groups from resurfacing again? Or would you stop them?

It is still coercion. You have destroyed the livelyhood of the people in said positions. You have also denied people the right to be protected by the aforesaid institutions. And what of those who fight against you? Would you allow them the freedom to crush your revolution? Or would you force them to cooperate? And once the revolution took place how would you stop these groups from resurfacing again? Or would you stop them?

The livelyhood of the people in power consists of contributing nothing and stealing from the average person. Is that what you want to protect?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<html><body>
<b>Free your mind!</b>
<i>You can fight back.</i>
</body></html>
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

It is still coercion. You have destroyed the livelyhood of the people in said positions. You have also denied people the right to be protected by the aforesaid institutions. And what of those who fight against you? Would you allow them the freedom to crush your revolution? Or would you force them to cooperate? And once the revolution took place how would you stop these groups from resurfacing again? Or would you stop them?

The livelyhood of the people in power consists of contributing nothing and stealing from the average person. Is that what you want to protect?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<html><body>
<b>Free your mind!</b>
<i>You can fight back.</i>
</body></html>
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

I thought anarchism was based on toleration of all ideas....

And your point about the people in power is debatable at best. Look at how quick you are to force it upon society! How is hiring, paying and protecting someone a form of exploitation? Furthermore, people require leadership even in a democratic society. Doctors tell sick people what to do to get well. Are they violating the rights of the common man? Would they be done away with in the new regime?

It is still coercion. You have destroyed the livelyhood of the people in said positions. You have also denied people the right to be protected by the aforesaid institutions. And what of those who fight against you? Would you allow them the freedom to crush your revolution? Or would you force them to cooperate? And once the revolution took place how would you stop these groups from resurfacing again? Or would you stop them?

The livelyhood of the people in power consists of contributing nothing and stealing from the average person. Is that what you want to protect?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<html><body>
<b>Free your mind!</b>
<i>You can fight back.</i>
</body></html>
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

I thought anarchism was based on toleration of all ideas....

And your point about the people in power is debatable at best. Look at how quick you are to force it upon society! How is hiring, paying and protecting someone a form of exploitation? Furthermore, people require leadership even in a democratic society. Doctors tell sick people what to do to get well. Are they violating the rights of the common man? Would they be done away with in the new regime?

It is still coercion. You have destroyed the livelyhood of the people in said positions. You have also denied people the right to be protected by the aforesaid institutions. And what of those who fight against you? Would you allow them the freedom to crush your revolution? Or would you force them to cooperate? And once the revolution took place how would you stop these groups from resurfacing again? Or would you stop them?

The livelyhood of the people in power consists of contributing nothing and stealing from the average person. Is that what you want to protect?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<html><body>
<b>Free your mind!</b>
<i>You can fight back.</i>
</body></html>
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

I thought anarchism was based on toleration of all ideas....

And your point about the people in power is debatable at best. Look at how quick you are to force it upon society! How is hiring, paying and protecting someone a form of exploitation? Furthermore, people require leadership even in a democratic society. Doctors tell sick people what to do to get well. Are they violating the rights of the common man? Would they be done away with in the new regime?

It is still coercion. You have destroyed the livelyhood of the people in said positions.

yup. that's kinda the point. there is a class of people that uses their position of power in the economic realm to benefit themselves disproportionately at the expense of everyone else. we intend to get rid of that position of power entirely and create an economic system based on freedom and equality; instead of one based on "voluntary" submission to the will of elites.

though as i said, the former bosses can join us - providing they give up their position of power and authority.

You have also denied people the right to be protected by the aforesaid institutions.

the primal and primary reason for the existence of the state and its armed enforcers is not to protect people in general. it is to protect the privilege and wealth of the rulers, whatever class they happen to be. so yeah, we kinda intend to deny those people the "right" to be specially protected.

that is not to say that people will be unprotected. merely that if people in general are to be protected, the only way to do it is to create new institutions that are built specifically for that purpose and with no other conflicting purpose.

And what of those who fight against you? Would you allow them the freedom to crush your revolution? Or would you force them to cooperate? And once the revolution took place how would you stop these groups from resurfacing again? Or would you stop them?

of those that fight against, we will fight until we win. there is no "freedom" to crush freedom - any conception of freedom that allows such contradictions is of no use because it will have to claim that dictatorships are free. but they will not be forced to join us when we defeat them. nor will we round them up and shoot them. they will be free to do whatever as long as they leave us, and any who join us, alone. of course, we will be there, trying to convince any people who decided to stick with the former bosses and rulers to join our cause and continue the revolution.

as for stopping the forces of reaction from rising again; after we're strong enough to have taken out entrenched power, new upstarts will be no problem. we will just have to be vigilant.

[quote]It is still coercion. You have destroyed the livelyhood of the people in said positions. You have also denied people the right to be protected by the aforesaid institutions. And what of those who fight against you? Would you allow them the freedom to crush your revolution? Or would you force them to cooperate? And once the revolution took place how would you stop these groups from resurfacing again? Or would you stop them?

The livelyhood of the people in power consists of contributing nothing and stealing from the average person. Is that what you want to protect?

Fool. Those in power do not steal from the ones below. If that were true then the middle class would not exist. The Uber rich would be stealing from them.

Some anarchist you are. Forcing people to be free. But then perhaps I misunderstand. What type of coercion is considered acceptable to "lovers of freedom" like yourselves?

How are we forcing people to be free?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<html><body>
<b>Free your mind!</b>
<i>You can fight back.</i>
</body></html>
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg By forceing them to think they are prisioners! My mind is free! It whole and rational! It is free to think that chaos is death!

Fool. Those in power do not steal from the ones below. If that were true then the middle class would not exist. The Uber rich would be stealing from them.

The middle class is simply people who can survive. They are being robbed.

And your point about the people in power is debatable at best. Look at how quick you are to force it upon society! How is hiring, paying and protecting someone a form of exploitation?

They have to give you part of what they produce. They can't refuse to if they want to have a source of money to buy food.

By forceing them to think they are prisioners! My mind is free! It whole and rational! It is free to think that chaos is death!

They are prisoners. They are almost slaves of the upper class.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<html><body>
<b>Free your mind!</b>
<i>You can fight back.</i>
</body></html>
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

It is still coercion. You have destroyed the livelyhood of the people in said positions.

yup. that's kinda the point. there is a class of people that uses their position of power in the economic realm to benefit themselves disproportionately at the expense of everyone else. we intend to get rid of that position of power entirely and create an economic system based on freedom and equality; instead of one based on "voluntary" submission to the will of elites.

though as i said, the former bosses can join us - providing they give up their position of power and authority.

You have also denied people the right to be protected by the aforesaid institutions.

the primal and primary reason for the existence of the state and its armed enforcers is not to protect people in general. it is to protect the privilege and wealth of the rulers, whatever class they happen to be. so yeah, we kinda intend to deny those people the "right" to be specially protected.

that is not to say that people will be unprotected. merely that if people in general are to be protected, the only way to do it is to create new institutions that are built specifically for that purpose and with no other conflicting purpose.

And what of those who fight against you? Would you allow them the freedom to crush your revolution? Or would you force them to cooperate? And once the revolution took place how would you stop these groups from resurfacing again? Or would you stop them?

of those that fight against, we will fight until we win. there is no "freedom" to crush freedom - any conception of freedom that allows such contradictions is of no use because it will have to claim that dictatorships are free. but they will not be forced to join us when we defeat them. nor will we round them up and shoot them. they will be free to do whatever as long as they leave us, and any who join us, alone. of course, we will be there, trying to convince any people who decided to stick with the former bosses and rulers to join our cause and continue the revolution.

as for stopping the forces of reaction from rising again; after we're strong enough to have taken out entrenched power, new upstarts will be no problem. we will just have to be vigilant.

Like I said, just like the bolshevick and Nazi thugs of the last century. Instead of democracy you advocate violence. Instead of reform you advocate destruction. You are nothing more than ideological bullies. If your ideology is representative of what you have told me, then yu belong on a terrorist watch list.

Like I said, just like the bolshevick and Nazi thugs of the last century. Instead of democracy you advocate violence. Instead of reform you advocate destruction. You are nothing more than ideological bullies. If your ideology is representative of what you have told me, then yu belong on a terrorist watch list.

We do advocate democracy, direct democracy. The government is the one doing violence instead of democracy, forcing us to follow their ideas. You can't reform the system. It's inherently wrong.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<html><body>
<b>Free your mind!</b>
<i>You can fight back.</i>
</body></html>
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Like I said, just like the bolshevick and Nazi thugs of the last century. Instead of democracy you advocate violence. Instead of reform you advocate destruction. You are nothing more than ideological bullies. If your ideology is representative of what you have told me, then yu belong on a terrorist watch list.

i unappologetically desire revolution. i advocate revolution because i am in favor of real democracy, real freedom, and real peace. i advocate revolution because you cannot reform a system whose entire history is based on oppression and control, whose very foundation rests on the class system and the concept of the few ruling over the many. it has been tried and it has failed everytime. reform is merely triming a few branches, able only to make a few modifications to outward appearances. to win our freedom we must strike at the root. and to strike at the root is revolution.

comparisons to nazis and the bolsheviks are unfair (not to mention a logical fallacy), because they are not the only ones to use violence in order to attain their political ends. nearly every political ideology that has ever existed has used political violence in one form or another. for example representative democracy would not exist except for the violence it used to overthrow the ancien regime. however, our revolution will be different from all the other revolutions in at least one key respect - we intend to dismantle the entire system of oprression and privilege and rebuild society on just and equitable foundations instead of merely installing a new boss.

do not give us shit about "the violence of revolution" when the system already in place was founded on, and continuously causes, vastly more violence and suffering than anything we would throw at it. it really is a case of using 'coercion' to take away the stick of a person that is beating you. and i will always defend that use of 'coercion'.

65 page limit reached.

*does the lockomotion - freestyle!*