Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The problem with Anarchists is they can never come up with solutions and they can never say why anarchism is a good thing.

Anarchy is a complete failure if you ask me.

At 7/30/11 09:58 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: The problem with Anarchists is they can never come up with solutions and they can never say why anarchism is a good thing.

Anarchy is a complete failure if you ask me.

the real problem is that we are still on topic. true anarchists would all be talking about completely different topics without responding to anything anyone says.

At 7/30/11 06:31 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

At 7/30/11 04:27 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: fun fact there OP Anarchy DOES NOT WORK.

oh? then how did life on earth manage for the billions of years before we became civilized?

Actually, most animal species have a social hierarchy of some kind. Wolves for instance have a pecking order, starting with the alpha male and going in a specific order from there.

Also to the OP: isn't a federation automatically hierarchically governed by being united under a central authority? Or was 'federation' not the term you were looking for?

At 7/30/11 11:16 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:
Also to the OP: isn't a federation automatically hierarchically governed by being united under a central authority? Or was 'federation' not the term you were looking for?

You're right, "Confederation" would probably be a better word.

ED had a pretty good page about anarchy before they gave up on life

who is this ED person?

The only people I've ever met who think anarchy is a good thing:

- Young'uns
- White trash
- Hippies
- Hipsters AKA Rich hippies who bathe
- Well educated, reasonable people with good arguments

That is in descending order by number of people in each group who subscribe to anarchy.

So what are the rules of the club

The about anarchists is that most cannot agree on what 'tenants' there would be for anarchism, there is no single defined point that all anarchists share. Those who are considered anarchists at best resemble a sort of family resemblance. Most older anarchists oppose all forms of aggression and are in support of self deffence and non violence 'anarcho-pacifism'. While many younger anarchists believe in violent revolution and propaganda of the dead is the way to an anarchist society. Such was the case of Bakunin where in his earlier days he believed in a violent revolution but as he got older he began to realise that anarcho-pacifism was the most logical way. To those who say it does not work, may I draw your attention to these. The free territory in the Ukraine. From November 1918 to June 1919, the Makhnovists established an anarchist society run by the peasants and workers in Ukraine. The territory that was under their control was approximately between Berdyansk, Donetsk, Alexandrovsk and Yekaterinoslav. The agricultural majority of these villages was composed of peasants, one would understand at the same both time peasants and workers. They were founded first of all on equality and solidarity of its members. Everyone, men and women, worked together with a perfect conscience that they should work on fields or that they should be used in housework... The work program was established in meetings in which everyone participated. Then they knew exactly what they had to do.
the Bolsheviks increasingly saw the Makhnovists as a threat to their power, and restarted a propaganda campaign declaring the Free Territory to be a warlord regime, and eventually broke with it by launching surprise attacks on Makhnovist militias despite the pre-existing alliance between the factions. The Bolshevik press alleged that leaders in the "Free Territory", rather than being elected democratically, were appointed by Makhno's military clique. They claimed that Makhno himself had refused to provide food for Soviet railwaymen and telegraph operators, that the "special section" of the Makhnovist constitution provided for secret executions and torture, that Makhno's forces had raided Red Army convoys for supplies, stolen an armored car from Bryansk when asked to repair it, and that the Nabat group was responsible for deadly acts of terrorism in Russian cities. Such allegations were generally unsubstantiated. So understand that anarchism does work. The downfall of so many anarchist societies is due to outsider influence, and by this I mean attacks on key buildings in ifrastructure and on militia.
Reasons why anarchism is viewed as a good idea and when put into action is because poverty wouldn't be an issue, people could be happy if we could set aside petty differences and work for a common goal.
"peace cannot be kept by force. it can only be achieved by understanding" - albert einstein

At 7/31/11 12:03 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: who is this ED person?

I think it's referring to Encyclopedia Dramatica.

At 7/31/11 10:49 AM, Ericho wrote:

At 7/31/11 12:03 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: who is this ED person?

I think it's referring to Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Is that a username for NG or somone who has a profile for the Encyclopedia website?

At 7/30/11 11:16 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:

At 7/30/11 06:31 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

At 7/30/11 04:27 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: fun fact there OP Anarchy DOES NOT WORK.

oh? then how did life on earth manage for the billions of years before we became civilized?

Actually, most animal species have a social hierarchy of some kind. Wolves for instance have a pecking order, starting with the alpha male and going in a specific order from there.

may i present to you an exception?

Paradox, much?

Anarchism is an idiotic system. Just look at Somalia. Everyone just ends up killing each other and stealing each others stuff.

If you get rid of the leaders you will still have problems. Too many people wanting to do things differently and too many people wanting to control others.

You want equality? Change human nature first. We are a savage species.

At 7/31/11 12:07 PM, camobch0 wrote: Paradox, much?

Anarchism is an idiotic system. Just look at Somalia. Everyone just ends up killing each other and stealing each others stuff.

That is not an expample of an anarchist society.

At 7/31/11 12:10 PM, psycho-squirrel wrote: If you get rid of the leaders you will still have problems. Too many people wanting to do things differently and too many people wanting to control others.

You want equality? Change human nature first. We are a savage species.

Time will take its toll. "We are going to inherit the earth . There is not the slightest doubt about that. The bourgeoisie may blast and burn its own world before it finally leaves the stage of history. We Are not afraid of ruins. We who ploughed the prairies and built the cities can build again, only better next time. We carry a new world, here in our hearts. That world is growing this minute." ----Durruti

Anarchy doesn't exist and it never has existed. I'm pretty sure it was a bunch of punk teenagers that got tired of being bossed around and started yelling "anarchy" or some shit.

Because, truly, humans are followers, not leaders. You might say "Oh, but I'm a leader!". You never had to actually survive, you've been spoon-fed your whole life. By who? People above you in the hierarchy ladder (whether it be business, social, or political if you like teh food stamps). So, yeah, anarchy doesn't exist, it can't.

Where everyone shares everything and we are all equal? That, my friend, would be communism.

At 7/31/11 01:22 PM, Unit-Beta wrote: Anarchy doesn't exist and it never has existed. I'm pretty sure it was a bunch of punk teenagers that got tired of being bossed around and started yelling "anarchy" or some shit.

Because, truly, humans are followers, not leaders. You might say "Oh, but I'm a leader!". You never had to actually survive, you've been spoon-fed your whole life. By who? People above you in the hierarchy ladder (whether it be business, social, or political if you like teh food stamps). So, yeah, anarchy doesn't exist, it can't.

Where everyone shares everything and we are all equal? That, my friend, would be communism.

Sorry to say this but your talking out your ass mate. You obviously havent a clue about the subject. The earliest anarchist themes can be found in the 6th century BC, among the works of Taoist philosopher Laozi. As soon as the relationship between lord and subject is established, hearts become daily filled with evil designs, until the manacled criminals sullenly doing forced labour in the mud and the dust are full of mutinous thoughts. This is an example of what has become of you. Obviously not litteraly, we are a bit more socialised for this it would seem but the ideas of having a hierarchical society and it not working any other way have been spoon fed to you. If you truly have no interest in the matter yet you still ridicule it, you dear boy are would be most ignorant. Communism is a form of a political system, anarchism is NOT.

The idea that mankind is capable of naturally forming a truely mutualist society in which no man desires to exploit or control another is a dangerously naive belief that flies in the face of thousands of years of recorded history.

At 7/31/11 04:34 PM, Me-Patch wrote: The idea that mankind is capable of naturally forming a truely mutualist society in which no man desires to exploit or control another is a dangerously naive belief that flies in the face of thousands of years of recorded history.

As I have said, there have been cases where anarchist societies have worked its just that due to outsider influence, mainly a millitary force and propaganda have been used to eradicate those instances. Yes it is true there will still be those who will wish to have something better than someone else and will wish to control others. These people in an anarchist society would not exist when it is formed and if they did then they would be forced to leave. Just like in work. As everyone would be expected to work together for the good of the society. If they did not have any imput and decide not to work then they would be forced to leave. If you want to know more about this then ask, I have merely put down some basics about it.

At 7/31/11 04:34 PM, Me-Patch wrote: The idea that mankind is capable of naturally forming a truely mutualist society in which no man desires to exploit or control another is a dangerously naive belief that flies in the face of thousands of years of recorded history.

Oh and it is infact the reverse, it is dangerously naive to believe that we are not able to form a mutualistic society in which no man desires to exploit or control another. I myself doubt all people within a society will be truely mutual. There is not a recorded case in which everyone was truely mutual. This is the case with religions and all forms of politics.

At 7/31/11 05:21 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 7/31/11 04:58 PM, Confucianism wrote: Oh and it is infact the reverse, it is dangerously naive to believe that we are not able to form a mutualistic society in which no man desires to exploit or control another. I myself doubt all people within a society will be truly mutual. There is not a recorded case in which everyone was truly mutual. This is the case with religions and all forms of politics.

You DO realize that you are directly contradicting yourself, right?

At first you say that only naive people believe that a mutualistic society is impossible... then YOU say that a perfectly mutualistic society is impossible. Are you retarded?

The word impossible was never used, I didnt say naive people I said it is naive and yes I said a mutualistic society not a perfectly mutualistic. These are two different things.

Jeez. You would think we would have move passed this discussion of some imagined abolition of our institutions and go back to trying to make them as efficient as possible instead.

Wait a minute... What exactly IS anarchy? I thought it was no government at all, but looking on a few sites it seems like for the most part there is a government but nobody recognizes it. So how does this benefit us?

I also read that libertarianism is included in anarchy. Is this so?

Confucianism, I pretty sure you're just a 14 or 15 year old who likes to read a lot of blogs. If you really have some maturity, you'd be able to realize that the world doesn't run on fairy dust. Destroying the laws and police forces and armies doesn't bringing us closer to freedom, it actually tears us farther from it. Without a system of order and rehabilitation, people who aren't mentally stable can kill and rob and rape freely. Rich people who have a lot of power will be able to use force and fear to control the populous. Instead of just letting people go wild, you should instead try to spend your time figuring out ways to help change and improve the current system.

Besides the fact that "anarchists" are usually just angsty teenagers with some Daddy issues.

At 7/31/11 12:07 PM, camobch0 wrote: Paradox, much?

Anarchism is an idiotic system. Just look at Somalia. Everyone just ends up killing each other and stealing each others stuff.

Putting the cart before the horse much?

Anarchy is the result of the situation in Somalia, not the other way around.

At 7/31/11 12:42 PM, Confucianism wrote: Time will take its toll. "We are going to inherit the earth . There is not the slightest doubt about that. The bourgeoisie may blast and burn its own world before it finally leaves the stage of history. We Are not afraid of ruins. We who ploughed the prairies and built the cities can build again, only better next time. We carry a new world, here in our hearts. That world is growing this minute." ----Durruti

Time will take its toll, but not necessarily in your favor. If you think that you have no chance of loosing then you have already lost. But I know your type of people, my words will mean nothing because you already think you have won. Well when the time comes to take the world back, please be kind enough to stay on the sidelines because you will ruin it with your arrogance.

At 7/31/11 11:26 PM, camobch0 wrote: Confucianism, I pretty sure you're just a 14 or 15 year old who likes to read a lot of blogs. If you really have some maturity, you'd be able to realize that the world doesn't run on fairy dust. Destroying the laws and police forces and armies doesn't bringing us closer to freedom, it actually tears us farther from it. Without a system of order and rehabilitation, people who aren't mentally stable can kill and rob and rape freely. Rich people who have a lot of power will be able to use force and fear to control the populous. Instead of just letting people go wild, you should instead try to spend your time figuring out ways to help change and improve the current system.

Besides the fact that "anarchists" are usually just angsty teenagers with some Daddy issues.

Yet again you are another person who does not know much about the subject in hand, and no Im not some 14/15 year old kid. "Destroying the laws and police forces and armies doesn't bringing us closer to freedom, it actually tears us farther from it." This is a very ignorant thing to say indeed. "Anarchism has but one infallible, unchangeable motto, 'Freedom.' Freedom to discover any truth, freedom to develop, to live naturally and fully." »» Lucy Parsons. You give up your freedom for the safety that the government promises you. In reality what are these Governments, without which people think they could not exist? There may have been a time when such goverments were necessary, and when the evil of supporting a Government was less than that of being defenceless against organized neighbours, but now such Governments have become unnecessary, and are a far greater evil than all the dangers with which they frighten their subjects. Not only military Governments, but Governments in general, could be, I will not say usefull, but at least harmless, only if they consisted of imaculate, holy people, as is theoretically the case among the Chinese 100 years ago. But then Governments, by nature of their activity, which consist in commiting acts of violence, are always composed of elements the most contrary of holiness - of the most audacious, unscupulous and perverted people. A Government, therefore, and especially a Government entrusted with military power, is the most dangerous organization possible.

At 7/31/11 10:29 PM, WizMystery wrote: Wait a minute... What exactly IS anarchy? I thought it was no government at all, but looking on a few sites it seems like for the most part there is a government but nobody recognizes it. So how does this benefit us?

I also read that libertarianism is included in anarchy. Is this so?

An anarchist society is governed by small, highly decentralized communes. There are no real "leaders", but there are elected delegates who can be recalled at any time by popular vote. Societies basic functions are handled by community institutions.

No, libertarianism is not part of anarchism, many people think this.

The traditional answer
Libertarians want severely limited government and anarchists want none.

The humanist answer
Libertarians are nonviolent; some anarchists are violent.

The funny answer
Libertarians are to anarchists as nudists are to naked people.They're just middle class & organized so they appear less crazy.

The Party answer (from Andre Marrou)
An anarchist is an extreme libertarian, like a socialist is an extreme democrat, and a fascist is an extreme republican.

The graphic answer
It's like the difference between a lover and a rapist.They're both in the same place but one uses violence to get there.

The straight answer
Libertarians believe in free markets, private property, and capitalism. Anarchists who believe in these things usually call themselves libertarians.

Confucianism, I think you are entirely confused on how humanity actually works.