• Anarchist Conference Devolves Into Chaos
    38 replies, posted
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];44818095']it is when you're talking philosophy and any politics and ideology outside of liberalism. figures liberals don't even understand the basic concepts of their own ideology. bet u havent even read locke u scrub[/QUOTE] Having read Locke doesn't change that I haven't heard one good argument from any self proclaimed anarchist ever
these people need to rethink their lives
"who called the fucking pigs" Holy shit please stop, please.
Get a look at all those edgy teenagers.
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;44820652]Get a look at all those edgy teenagers.[/QUOTE] the sad thing is they aren't teenagers
[QUOTE=Big Bang;44818541]so instead you mean the overly complicated form of anarcho communism that appeals to pseudo intellectuals where you pretty much don't own anything, you only get what you need not what you want, and with the abolition of central authority and therefore personal rights leaving only the collective to voluntarily defend itself and its members in the face of outside threats? the Ukrainian Free Territory was ruled by a warlord, Nestor Makhno, with an army. that's a de facto authority. they got their troops by conscription. they took their guns by stealing them from the enemy, Makhno is nothing better than Fidel Castro, or any of the warlords ruling different parts of Somalia. he sent soldiers, soldiers killed people, authority was established, the sole difference between this and most other societies is that his definition of soldier was "everybody that could hold a gun". the other "example" of anarcho-communism, during the Spanish Revolution, similarly resorted to force in numbers to coerce people to collaborate. it's de facto authority, it's not actually anarchy and that's the sole reason it lasted more than a month.[/QUOTE] because wartime is an accurate portrayal of the way society should work in peacetime. Your definition of anarcho-communism is both asinine and incorrect. And further there's no need to condense anarchism down to anarchist communism, by default anarchism is anarchist communism is anarchism. Most other strains are derivative of this but the end goal is the same. The methodology is the only difference, and it's not the methodology that is the problem. Catalonia, btw, had democratic elections on the collectivization of villages- liberated communities were free to, and often did, reject collectivization. There was no "force to collaborate" besides the necessity of fighting the enemy. But cry your liberal crocodile tears and tell me how Makhno shooting a bunch of serf-owning kulaks and the CNT executing fascists and their puppets is wrong and immoral and coercion and so un-anarchist! Neither of these, nor the other two major examples of the FZLN and Paris Commune, were completely anarchist. In the same way that one can not call America a pure democracy nor purely free-market, these societies existed in conditions of active defense and offense, requiring mobilization and coercion in order to forge their existence. Beyond this, these societies existed in capitalist economies and even if they were not in wartime, new societies are not built overnight and they don't happen without counter-revolution or opposition. Can we blame these things on the anarchists and the syndicalists? No, no more than you can blame Lincoln for burning the South, suspending rights of Southerns, and establishing military dictatorships over the South, its economies, its politics, and its people. Criticize the actions of the leaders all that you want but all that really comes down to are moral and political arguments that no common ground will be found on. Again, you've shown your ignorance of the subject by assuming that anarchism rejects coercion and violence in revolutionary action. [editline]16th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44819540]Having read Locke doesn't change that I haven't heard one good argument from any self proclaimed anarchist ever[/QUOTE] Maybe you haven't, but it's generally a good idea to understand the foundations of your own ideology before you begin to criticize others'. A fascist still looks like an idiot when they criticize the existence of classes in Marxist thought when it was Mussolini who argued that not only do classes exist, they are a major foundation component to society. This is actually a good analogy, because both anarchists and liberals alike, and socialist and so on, agree on the difference between the state and governance, the difference being, like with fascists and leftists, that one side promotes the state while the other argues against it. No one argues against governance, anymore than fascists and socialists wouldn't disagree on the existence of classes. Roundabout of it is that anarchists don't disagree with governance, it is the concept of the state- an above-human, separate entity that exists to enact the rule of law without question, that anarchists disagree with. Governance is fine in most variations, and the variations often have different ideas on how to best apply it, generally in a less-coercive form such as consensus or participatarianism. I'm not sold on the realism and effectiveness of these methods, but the argument still stands that you aren't attacking the merit of their ideas when you don't even know what their ideas are.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];44821519']But cry your liberal crocodile tears and tell me how Makhno shooting a bunch of serf-owning kulaks and the CNT executing fascists and their puppets is wrong and immoral and coercion and so un-anarchist![/quote] *holds up a rock* who owns this rock?
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];44821519'] [editline]16th May 2014[/editline] Maybe you haven't, but it's generally a good idea to understand the foundations of your own ideology before you begin to criticize others'. A fascist still looks like an idiot when they criticize the existence of classes in Marxist thought when it was Mussolini who argued that not only do classes exist, they are a major foundation component to society. This is actually a good analogy, because both anarchists and liberals alike, and socialist and so on, agree on the difference between the state and governance, the difference being, like with fascists and leftists, that one side promotes the state while the other argues against it. No one argues against governance, anymore than fascists and socialists wouldn't disagree on the existence of classes. Roundabout of it is that anarchists don't disagree with governance, it is the concept of the state- an above-human, separate entity that exists to enact the rule of law without question, that anarchists disagree with. Governance is fine in most variations, and the variations often have different ideas on how to best apply it, generally in a less-coercive form such as consensus or participatarianism. I'm not sold on the realism and effectiveness of these methods, but the argument still stands that you aren't attacking the merit of their ideas when you don't even know what their ideas are.[/QUOTE] It's an assumption on your part that I don't understand the ideas being peddled by anarchists. I do. I disagree with them. Understanding =/= me agreeing with them or even seeing them as reasonable. If the state, or governance isn't "above" anyone else, it cannot make decisions for people. It is not empowered to do so. So governance already makes almost no sense in this context.
i'm still really confused as to why people are yelling in the video.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.