Is it wrong?

[The Anarchist]

I can't help but feel wrong about this, but I'm comfortable living in a capitalist society. Do I like it? Is it the best society possible? Is it right?

Not in my opinion at least. :glare:

I can't change the entire government; but what are ways I can promote anarchism without causing things to become hypocritical?

[Ingraham Effingham]

I feel the same way too, sometimes. But then i try remember that it's a system where every dollar you put into it (inefficiently) funds atrocities against an unseen third-world country or mother nature.

The way it is, you are forced to be a murderer or murdered.

Pessimistic, right?

[Astarte]

I can't help but feel wrong about this, but I'm comfortable living in a capitalist society. Do I like it? Is it the best society possible? Is it right?

Not in my opinion at least. :glare:

I can't change the entire government; but what are ways I can promote anarchism without causing things to become hypocritical?

so basically you are just a hipster?

[hatzel]

what are ways I can promote anarchism without causing things to become hypocritical?

Literally any way you could ever imagine. The most hypocritical thing imaginable would be saying 'yo yo, I'm an anarchist, but I'm literally not going to do a single thing about it, because I'm happy with how stuff is'...as Astarte said, that's more the sign of a hipster than it is an anarchist...

[The Anarchist]

I think people misunderstood the post.
I am finding it hard to convince others to support anarchism (or even communism) without winning a debate or something.

When you win a debate, it's hypocritical.
"Should I be looking as Anarchism as just a political form, or optimistically human nature?" is my issue. If I should look at it as human nature in it's purest form, then how on earth do I advocate it without turning it into socialism to communism?

Also, I am not a hipster. I'm actually somewhat anti-socialist (as in I don't communicate with people often, I'm not against socialism entirely).

[Comrade Trotsky]

I can't help but feel wrong about this, but I'm comfortable living in a capitalist society. Do I like it? Is it the best society possible? Is it right?

Not in my opinion at least. :glare:

I can't change the entire government; but what are ways I can promote anarchism without causing things to become hypocritical?

Being a psuedo-anarchist armchair warrior is never good.

Go out there and do anything you can. Like the last guy said, literally anything.

What do you mean by 'comfortable'?

[Comrade Trotsky]

What do you mean by 'comfortable'

[The Anarchist]

What do you mean by 'comfortable'

I should have REALLY explained that. I mean that I have adapted regardless of whether I think it is morally correct or if I like it. I wasn't born with the knowledge to protest and advocate what I believe is right.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I think people misunderstood the post.
I am finding it hard to convince others to support anarchism (or even communism) without winning a debate or something.

When you win a debate, it's hypocritical.
"Should I be looking as Anarchism as just a political form, or optimistically human nature?" is my issue. If I should look at it as human nature in it's purest form, then how on earth do I advocate it without turning it into socialism to communism?

Also, I am not a hipster. I'm actually somewhat anti-socialist (as in I don't communicate with people often, I'm not against socialism entirely).

You should approach Anarchism as a means by which we as working class people can abolish wage labour. Speaking to people isn't helpless but it alone isn't going to win them over to Anarchism or radical ideas of how we can organise our workplaces. Practical involvement with disputes in your workplace or community are what radicalises people foremost.

[hatzel]

Hmm...you strike me as a bit of an individualist and / or philosophical anarchist...perhaps...

[Spawn of Stalin]

I mean that I have adapted regardless of whether I think it is morally correct or if I like it.

Well you would be insane not to. Guilt is something practised by liberals, the will to do something about problems with the world is strictly reserved for revolutionaries.

[Psy]

I think people misunderstood the post.
I am finding it hard to convince others to support anarchism (or even communism) without winning a debate or something.

When you win a debate, it's hypocritical.
"Should I be looking as Anarchism as just a political form, or optimistically human nature?" is my issue. If I should look at it as human nature in it's purest form, then how on earth do I advocate it without turning it into socialism to communism?

Also, I am not a hipster. I'm actually somewhat anti-socialist (as in I don't communicate with people often, I'm not against socialism entirely).

You are missing the practical


http://www.workerseducation.org/crutch/graphics/organize.png

[The Anarchist]

You should approach Anarchism as a means by which we as working class people can abolish wage labour. Speaking to people isn't helpless but it alone isn't going to win them over to Anarchism or radical ideas of how we can organise our workplaces. Practical involvement with disputes in your workplace or community are what radicalises people foremost.

But. The issue is that requires me being in charge of convincing people alone, which is completely hypocritical. I'm not a socialist or a communist. I am by no means liberal either. I am a revolutionist who is confused on how to go about things without being hypocritical. Please read the words thoroughly.

[hatzel]

I don't understand what would be hypocritical? What would be, and why?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

But. The issue is that requires me being in charge of convincing people alone, which is completely hypocritical.

It doesn't mean your "in charge" of doing anything, what I'm arguing for is that in your workplace you should you argue for rank and file control of struggles, only as a class as a whole can we hope to change society. The fact you're not in charge should be what drives you.


I'm not a socialist or a communist. I am by no means liberal either. I am a revolutionist who is confused on how to go about things without being hypocritical. Please read the words thoroughly.

The job of radicals isn't to live their life by some moral code. May I ask why you are not a communist or don't believe in communism?

[The Anarchist]

It doesn't mean your "in charge" of doing anything, what I'm arguing for is that in your workplace you should you argue for rank and file control of struggles, only as a class as a whole can we hope to change society. The fact you're not in charge should be what drives you.



The job of radicals isn't to live their life by some moral code. May I ask why you are not a communist or don't believe in communism?

I don't live by a moral code, I just don't believe the un-needed struggle of others should be happening.

As for the reason I'm not communist, I don't believe that there should be any government to abolish the government. It's like fighting fire with fire in my opinion.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I don't live by a moral code, I just don't believe the un-needed struggle of others should be happening.

Struggle, as in struggle to pay rent or struggle as in workers in struggle?


As for the reason I'm not communist, I don't believe that there should be any government to abolish the government. It's like fighting fire with fire in my opinion.

Neither do I but I would still call myself a Communist. Communism doesn't necessarily mean the seizing of state power it can also mean striving to abolish it and replace it with workers self management and control of production.

[The Anarchist]

Struggle, as in struggle to pay rent or struggle as in workers in struggle?



Neither do I but I would still call myself a Communist. Communism doesn't necessarily mean the seizing of state power it can also mean striving to abolish it and replace it with workers self management and control of production.

Struggle at all.
I dislike people feeling lesser-than and the fact the person mowing the neighbor's lawn gets paid less than how much the neighbor does.

It is a bit screwy the way I stated things.

Edit: Also, I noticed your signature states you are an advocate of Anarchism; I am confused on your stance.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Struggle at all.
I dislike people feeling lesser-than and the fact the person mowing the neighbor's lawn gets paid less than how much the neighbor does.

It is a bit screwy the way I stated things.

Ok, so you dislike people feeling lesser than, I understand. Capitalism is a degrading social order. What do you take from this though? How do you feel we can change this?


Edit: Also, I noticed your signature states you are an advocate of Anarchism; I am confused on your stance.

I am, although I would use the term Anarcho-Syndicalist to more accurately describe my politics. Explain why you're confused. I'm happy to answer your questions. :)

[W1N5T0N]

Well as we can see, capitalism is just so full of internal flaws. For one, I believe that capitalism is the source of a lot of evil in the world ATM; not all, as that can be attributed to evil in human nature. I am a convinced atheist. But the bible does have a truth in it: "for the love of money is the root of all evil". Now, I dont agree with a whole lot, but this really hits the nail on the head. Our current societies are built on an economic system which is failed to doom, as it will keep hitting the holes in the road again and again until it breaks an axle, flips, crashed and burns. Our current political system, our vehicle, is so built on this economy that should the economy collapse, so will the government. And this economy is completely built on oil here. Because the more there is a need for consume, the more oil is used. Then- crisis. More oil is used to get out of it. Then we will run out of it, and society will splinter. In my opinion, there is a pretty safe bet that anarchy will reign, but in an organized way...maybe in this sense, anarchosyndicalism could mean bigger unions of people all working together on an existential basis? I mean, collapse of capitalist authority and transition to anarchy/communist after the FINAL crash is gonna take a while...because people have to react quick when it happens, and the current system is too slow to react. So, a green-anarcho-communsist revolution would be called for...get rid of governments for a sustainable world use!

[Magón]

@The Anarchist: By the way you've stated yourself, it sounds more like you're just someone who's completely apathetic to the whole situation of Class Struggle, because you feel alone in trying to "hypocritically" change people.

If you feel that someone having more power over another is wrong, like someone mowing another's lawn for less than the person paying them is paid, and feel that it does need to be changed, then trying to convince/discuss with someone or even a small group of people, doesn't make you a hypocrite. By trying to get something started where you live, or just make people more aware, you're doing something for the better of them. You'd only be a hypocrite if what you told them one thing, and did another, like not really try to get people to change their way of thinking, and help them try and break the chains that the Capitalist system has locked on them, and all of us.

If all you do is call yourself an Anarchist, but that's it, and don't really gage or discuss with people, what that means, you're likely not an Anarchist in the first place I'm sorry to say.

[The Anarchist]

Ok, so you dislike people feeling lesser than, I understand. Capitalism is a degrading social order. What do you take from this though? How do you feel we can change this?

I am, although I would use the term Anarcho-Syndicalist to more accurately describe my politics. Explain why you're confused. I'm happy to answer your questions. :)
I take it for what it truly is. How do you revolutionally cause Anarchism to happen? To do so would require a vast majority of the population's participation.
Though I haven't stated it, I am new, but it seems you were pushing communism upon me just a tad. Both focus on workforce (if I'm not mistaken), but communism requires socialism before. Correct?

[hatzel]

Though I haven't stated it, I am new, but it seems you were pushing communism upon me just a tad. Both focus on workforce (if I'm not mistaken), but communism requires socialism before. Correct?

That would be Communism in the Marxist sense. Not the anarchic sense à la Kropotkin.

EDIT: hold up, didn't you call yourself an anarcho-communist in your introduction thread? :confused:

[The Anarchist]

@The Anarchist: By the way you've stated yourself, it sounds more like you're just someone who's completely apathetic to the whole situation of Class Struggle, because you feel alone in trying to "hypocritically" change people.

If you feel that someone having more power over another is wrong, like someone mowing another's lawn for less than the person paying them is paid, and feel that it does need to be changed, then trying to convince/discuss with someone or even a small group of people, doesn't make you a hypocrite. By trying to get something started where you live, or just make people more aware, you're doing something for the better of them. You'd only be a hypocrite if what you told them one thing, and did another, like not really try to get people to change their way of thinking, and help them try and break the chains that the Capitalist system has locked on them, and all of us.

If all you do is call yourself an Anarchist, but that's it, and don't really gage or discuss with people, what that means, you're likely not an Anarchist in the first place I'm sorry to say.

No, that's not necessarily correct. It just means I'm not a revolutionary anarchist. I do have my debates, but that doesn't help anybody in the end. I convinced someone that what I believe in isn't completely impossible. That's nice. I could even convince them it's easily possible. That still doesn't help.

It's easier to promote communism because it requires socialism as a stepping stone. People that promote it can lead rallies and protest without feeling like a hypocrite for leading them.

Organizing things is almost impossible too. I am not 100% focused on workforce. To say I'm not committed because I'm unsure of the solution for solving all of the issues is not a fair accusation. I don't claim everybody here is liberal because they haven't started a reform, so claiming I'm not in favor of anarchism because I haven't one either isn't fair.

Not discussing it? We're discussing it right now.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I take it for what it truly is. How do you revolutionally cause Anarchism to happen? To do so would require a vast majority of the population's participation.

Yes, and I argue for rank and file control of workplace issues and struggles as a starting point for this. I agree that revolution requires mass participation and see this as a practical step towards that.


Though I haven't stated it, I am new, but it seems you were pushing communism upon me just a tad. Both focus on workforce (if I'm not mistaken), but communism requires socialism before. Correct?

Was I pushing Communism on you? I was merely trying to explain that there are several currents of Communist thought, not all of which agree that state power must be seized.

Communism requires socialism before? Well I would argue that Communism cannot be created overnight and a transitionary stage towards it will occur, that doesn't have to constitute socialism in a Leninist sense.

[The Anarchist]

Yes, and I argue for rank and file control of workplace issues and struggles as a starting point for this. I agree that revolution requires mass participation and see this as a practical step towards that.



Was I pushing Communism on you? I was merely trying to explain that there are several currents of Communist thought, not all of which agree that state power must be seized.

Communism requires socialism before? Well I would argue that Communism cannot be created overnight and a transitionary stage towards it will occur, that doesn't have to constitute socialism in a Leninist sense.

I never said it could be, people that have tried to do it in even more than that fail. I would say it's plausible to say it requires over a century of planning. But. I feel it is flawed due to the cooperation required of the government normally. I do respect communism, but I acknowledge its differences.

[L.A.P.]

The OP is really confusing, what is so hypocritical about anything you've mentioned? Your posts are bordering on incoherence.

[hatzel]

The OP is really confusing, what is so hypocritical about anything you've mentioned? Your posts are bordering on incoherence.

This. One of the most baffling threads I have ever come across...

[The Anarchist]

That would be Communism in the Marxist sense. Not the anarchic sense à la Kropotkin.

EDIT: hold up, didn't you call yourself an anarcho-communist in your introduction thread? :confused:
"Hello, new to the forum.
So far I'm really impressed, never knew there were so many people that shared the same beliefs. Very cool.
By any chance could someone answer why my posts need to be..."

Never said that?

@xx1994xx,
I think people misunderstand the way I explained the hypocrisy I am interpreting. You can't lead/dominate anything without it being hypocritical of anarchist views.
Mainly because you can't expect people to organize and cooperate with one another if people feel the need to dominate. If someone is dominant, it is the same dominant relationship governments currently hold over their people.

As far as my alignment, I'm not currently aligned to a particular Anarchic tendency.

[hatzel]

"Hello, new to the forum.
So far I'm really impressed, never knew there were so many people that shared the same beliefs. Very cool.
By any chance could someone answer why my posts need to be..."

Never said that?

Touché. Therefore, to reiterate:


Hmm...you strike me as a bit of an individualist and / or philosophical anarchist...perhaps...

[W1N5T0N]

I got to agree with Nin. Take the American foreign policy for example. WAR ON TERROR = TERROR. they make the same terror that they accuse their enemies of. now thats what i call hipocrisy...but yeah, I also experience a bit of this apathy...the thing is always: where to start, and with whom at your side.

[Magón]

No, that's not necessarily correct. It just means I'm not a revolutionary anarchist. I do have my debates, but that doesn't help anybody in the end. I convinced someone that what I believe in isn't completely impossible. That's nice. I could even convince them it's easily possible. That still doesn't help.

Well what are you trying to convince them about Communism or whatever? Are you telling them that it's a movement to happen over night, because nobody logically thinks that.


It's easier to promote communism because it requires socialism as a stepping stone. People that promote it can lead rallies and protest without feeling like a hypocrite for leading them.

If you think leading rallies and protests is hypocritical, then you're sort of misinformed/wrong. Anarchists, no matter who they are, or which they choose to be apart of, aren't completely against leadership, just the type of leadership that can't be gotten rid of because of bureaucratic bullshit, or statist crap. But if an Anarchist group were to lead a rally or protest, they're not hypocrites.


Organizing things is almost impossible too. I am not 100% focused on workforce. To say I'm not committed because I'm unsure of the solution for solving all of the issues is not a fair accusation. I don't claim everybody here is liberal because they haven't started a reform, so claiming I'm not in favor of anarchism because I haven't one either isn't fair.

Not discussing it? We're discussing it right now.

I'm not sure where you live, but I'm sure if you get involved with the groups and organizations around your area, you'll see that there might be some organization. Organizing isn't easy for any side of the political spectrum, not just for Anarchists or other Radical Leftists, but for Republicans and Democrats in the US too. As for what you're focused on, I have no clue, you're just sort of everywhere.

[hatzel]

I'm confused about how exactly the OP could have literally no ideas about anything, no tendency, but still managed to convince somebody his ideas could work. Convinced them of what? What was possible? Nobody ever doing anything, just sitting around refusing to interact with anybody else in any meaningful way? Sure, that might be feasible, but I really don't get how you can have convinced somebody of the viability of your system without even having a system...:confused: How about you tell us what your ideas are, convince us of your ideas, how does that sound?

[The Anarchist]

This. One of the most baffling threads I have ever come across...


Well what are you trying to convince them about Communism or whatever? Are you telling them that it's a movement to happen over night, because nobody logically thinks that.



If you think leading rallies and protests is hypocritical, then you're sort of misinformed/wrong. Anarchists, no matter who they are, or which they choose to be apart of, aren't completely against leadership, just the type of leadership that can't be gotten rid of because of bureaucratic bullshit, or statist crap. But if an Anarchist group were to lead a rally or protest, they're not hypocrites.



I'm not sure where you live, but I'm sure if you get involved with the groups and organizations around your area, you'll see that there might be some organization. Organizing isn't easy for any side of the political spectrum, not just for Anarchists or other Radical Leftists, but for Republicans and Democrats in the US too. As for what you're focused on, I have no clue, you're just sort of everywhere.

I have nothing to do with communism (I really need to update that nice little "tendency" field).

Anarchism opposes government control or war of classes. How can I lead a group without being the dominant person? If I dominate the group as the leader, it makes me no different from the government.

And, no, unless you know an English-speaking group of individuals residing in Rio I doubt I'll have any luck.

[Magón]

I have nothing to do with communism (I really need to update that nice little "tendency" field).

Anarchism opposes government control or war of classes. How can I lead a group without being the dominant person? If I dominate the group as the leader, it makes me no different from the government.

And, no, unless you know an English-speaking group of individuals residing in Rio I doubt I'll have any luck.

Uh, like I said, Anarchists aren't opposed to leadership, we still would have them, there's nothing wrong with a little leadership. In Anarchism, there will still be leaders and people in charge, but not like how today's people who are in charge are put in place. In an Anarchist/Communist society, the leaders are all agreed upon by those who think they're the best candidate for the job. If they fuck up at any time, no matter how soon or later in their leadership roll, they can be immediately taken from their leadership roll, and replaced; being sent back to where they started before becoming apart of the leadership, or whatever.

If Anarchists were really about the absolute abolishment of leadership, then it'd be nothing more than the stereotypical bullshit we get from Capitalists, and every other nut who doesn't know shit about Anarchism, and Anarchism really would equal Chaos!!

[RedMarxist]

as a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, I'd have to completely disagree with Anarchism entirely. Yet, I see no reason why you can't lead a protest. It must have organization to be a successful protest. Also, where do you stand. Are you against capitalism(like most, if not all on this forum), against the government, etc?

By the way, what nation do you live in, and why do you dislike government so much? Without government you have no order. If I were to lead a socialist state post revolution, I'd make sure order was intact as to make sure the nation did not fall apart(with anarchy, how would you even have a revolution if no one were there to lead it?) I may sound a bit authoritarian, but after a revolution all hell would break loose without authority.

[The Anarchist]

Uh, like I said, Anarchists aren't opposed to leadership, we still would have them, there's nothing wrong with a little leadership. In Anarchism, there will still be leaders and people in charge, but not like how today's people who are in charge are put in place. In an Anarchist/Communist society, the leaders are all agreed upon by those who think they're the best candidate for the job. If they fuck up at any time, no matter how soon or later in their leadership roll, they can be immediately taken from their leadership roll, and replaced; being sent back to where they started before becoming apart of the leadership, or whatever.

If Anarchists were really about the absolute abolishment of leadership, then it'd be nothing more than the stereotypical bullshit we get from Capitalists, and every other nut who doesn't know shit about Anarchism, and Anarchism really would equal Chaos!!

So I should only seek it to a certain extent?
Jeez, 5-6 posts later I get an answer related to what I was asking.

[hatzel]

Okay, so the OP's either a hardcore individualist anarchist, beyond the level of any individualist anarchist I've ever met before, or is just a massive troll...because I'm nice I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and go for the former...but if he's not going to say anything about his politics, anything he's read, then I think I might have to slide over to the second option...

[Magón]

So I should only seek it to a certain extent?
Jeez, 5-6 posts later I get an answer related to what I was asking.

Here I've given you two very informative and educational sites to check out, and learn about Anarchism properly. The first link will explain to you, the basics of Anarchism, and all that jazz. While the second is a link to many prominent Anarchist theorists and people throughout history, and what they've written on Anarchism and what it means.


http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/index.html

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I can't help but feel wrong about this, but I'm comfortable living in a capitalist society. Do I like it? Is it the best society possible? Is it right?

Not in my opinion at least. :glare:

I can't change the entire government; but what are ways I can promote anarchism without causing things to become hypocritical?

Anti-capitalists oppose capitalism not just on aesthetic or moral grounds (although ultimately anti-capitalism is a moral position) but rather because most people are not "comfortable".The US has an official unemployment rate back up at 9% and an unofficial rate that is much higher. The US is the only country in the world besides Somalia that does not have paid maternity leave. There are about 21 "industrialized nations". The US routinely ranks at the very bottom in terms of infant mortality, healthcare, education, family stability,quality of life, etc. The reason why other industrialized countries are doing somewhat better is because of working class struggle. These gains themselves are now under vicious attack. We are entering a period of major retrogression.

This is just in the First World. Further afield there is currently mass suicide of peasants in India hit hard by crisis. There is desperate grinding poverty in much of Africa, Central America, and elsewhere.Mexico is imploding and becoming the "second Afghanistan"., etc, etc,

I'm not an anarchist but both anarchism and the various strands of Marxism are projects to liberate humanity from the rule of capital, to create a truly human oriented world wide society.

But yeah, the days of being "comfortable" are long gone, and they ain't coming back.If we want to move society forward we will have to fight for it.

[RedMarxist]

to the OP: have you read any Marx or Engles? Lenin or Mao? How committed to anarchism are you?

To me personally, anarchism amounts to little more then a bunch of kids throwing stones ant police :tt2:

[The Anarchist]

Okay, so the OP's either a hardcore individualist anarchist, beyond the level of any individualist anarchist I've ever met before, or is just a massive troll...because I'm nice I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and go for the former...but if he's not going to say anything about his politics, anything he's read, then I think I might have to slide over to the second option...

I've never met a troll that would waste this much time on something.
I think you nailed it. What's so hardcore about the idea though?


to the OP: have you read any Marx or Engles? Lenin or Mao? How committed to anarchism are you?

To me personally, anarchism amounts to little more then a bunch of kids throwing stones ant police :tt2:
Yes, I've read that little manifesto to the point of insanity.
And about chaos, that's what everybody assumes, which really gets at me.
Nobody thinks it is even possible due to the whole punk era and anarchist cookbook bullshit that was thrown around.

[hatzel]

I think you nailed it. What's so hardcore about the idea though?

There's nothing hardcore about the ideology in an of itself. It's only hardcore when you go all 'oh oh oh, I can't even try to convince people of my idea without being a hypocrite because that's just forcing something on them and making me dominant over them and that's totally unanarchistic'...even the loopiest individualist anarchists have never been that loopy...

[The Anarchist]

There's nothing hardcore about the ideology in an of itself. It's only hardcore when you go all 'oh oh oh, I can't even try to convince people of my idea without being a hypocrite because that's just forcing something on them and making me dominant over them and that's totally unanarchistic'...even the loopiest individualist anarchists have never been that loopy...

Which leads all the way back to the first post, now that I think we've got an understanding of what I am asking. How "loopy" is considered plausible?
People will probably argue on it, but some information is better than none.

[L.A.P.]

@xx1994xx,
I think people misunderstand the way I explained the hypocrisy I am interpreting. You can't lead/dominate anything without it being hypocritical of anarchist views.
Mainly because you can't expect people to organize and cooperate with one another if people feel the need to dominate. If someone is dominant, it is the same dominant relationship governments currently hold over their people.

As far as my alignment, I'm not currently aligned to a particular Anarchic tendency.

Ok, I understand a little more now. You think that an Anarchist trying to influence the views of others is hypocritical because your idea of anarchism is freedom from influence. Well this idea of anarchism is completely false unless you talk about individualist anarchism which is either completely reactionary anarcho-capitalism or just idealist philosophical anarchism. The idea that you can completely avoid influence from everyone but yourself is pretty much impossible and useless to attempt. Even under the ideal society of anarcho-capitalism and philosophical anarchism there still would be people influencing others. The goal is to give the working class more influence on the means of production because they should control what they create. It's not about avoiding others' influence, it's about shifting the influence to a more favorable group.

[hatzel]

How "loopy" is considered plausible?

A certain amount of loopiness is a-okay with me. But not to the extent that I outlined. That would pretty much mean that we would have to abolish all schools, and even books, so that one person can't be 'hypocritical' by imposing their ideas on another. I also don't think that loopiness which makes literally no effort to implement its ideas is plausible. Tucker-esque 'well, eventually sometime they'll be an anarchist society (but probably only when the social anarchists organise to achieve it), but when that happens, this is how we'll organise society' is pretty much pointless. So not remotely plausible for enacting any meaningful change in society, no...

[The Anarchist]

I think you guys understood. That was a pain to figure out for sure.
I definitely need to improve my vocabulary.

[Ocean Seal]

You're looking at it the wrong way. Get involved, is my advice to you. Go help out groups. Talk to your fellow worker, organize events, hand out pamphlets (even if it is by yourself), set up a socialism talk desk, help out the IWW/ISO/PSL/ICC (it doesn't matter), go to workers on strike on your own and try to convince them that there is a light at the end of the tunnel, start socialist charity bake sales or something. It doesn't even matter what you do-- just do something.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Which leads all the way back to the first post, now that I think we've got an understanding of what I am asking. How "loopy" is considered plausible?
People will probably argue on it, but some information is better than none.

If what they explained is accurate of what you believe then thats pretty shit.

Anarchism has nothing to do with living in a bubble. It's about working class people talking control of society for ourselves. How do we get to a stage where this can become a reality? We have to organise in our workplaces. It's not un-anarchistic to persuade people to this idea also. If you realise Capitalism is a flawed socio-economic order which exploits the majority of people, as Anarchists do, then how else are we going to get rid of it without persuading people to this also?

You seem very confused and 'philsophical' though your philosophy has little coherence and you haven't listened to one thing I've explained to you about Communism, you still seem to equate Communism with govt which you see as BAD even though I explained there are several currents of Communism not all of which believe we should seize state power. I suppose your ignorance on that is just you refusing to have Communism 'pushed on you'.

[SacRedMan]

Real capitalism is working in factories every day for almost 18hours and as result getting 2USD