"Somalia is anarchist" trainwreck

[DROSL]

Brutus, a secret police is probably the antithesis of anarchism. Who will command this secret police? You? Oh, and don't come here and say I'm a liberal. There's no such thing as "anarchism" a.k.a. the rule of nothing. Humanity is weak, there's always someone who decides for a group. Anarchism is probably more of a reactionary doctrine rather than a progressive one, if you want to go back before antiquity, I'd order a time machine. There's no such thing as no state, I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings, but Humanity isn't enough mentaly advanced yet, to be able to direct itself. After all, we're just animals. And there's still learning to do. Everything works within a system, if there's no system, it's chaos. The rule of nature and its strongest beasts. If you want a good preview of your utopian society, here it is: Somalia. I'd give you a ticket for this wonderful location, if you promise you never come back. You lotus-eaters always fail.

[Skyhilist]

LOL Somalia, really? You think we're all an-caps here? :laugh:

[DROSL]

Sorry Chomsky, since Somalia is probably the only hell hole in which anarchy was preserve for more than a year, I used it as an example. If you can find an other in which its successful, I'm all here. But since it has a 100% failure rate, I'm pretty positive Somalia is the Roman Empire of anarchist societies and as you can see, it isn't very glorious. Of course, you can construct yourself a people's militia and then kill the "people" that resist anarchy and chaos, but I'm still sure your militia won't last long as most people aren't dumb enough to believe this actual nonsense. With this kind of project you'd create something even far worst than any dictatorship, because let's be honest here, more than 90% of the population will be against you. Which makes you roughly 6.3 billion people to exterminate with your "people's militia", since a militia is about the size of a battalion, the maximum 500 members of your militia must kill at least 12,600,000 humans each. Good luck with your genocide.

[#FF0000]

Brutus, a secret police is probably the antithesis of anarchism. Who will command this secret police? You? Oh, and don't come here and say I'm a liberal. There's no such thing as "anarchism" a.k.a. the rule of nothing. Humanity is weak, there's always someone who decides for a group. Anarchism is probably more of a reactionary doctrine rather than a progressive one, if you want to go back before antiquity, I'd order a time machine. There's no such thing as no state, I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings, but Humanity isn't enough mentaly advanced yet, to be able to direct itself. After all, we're just animals. And there's still learning to do. Everything works within a system, if there's no system, it's chaos. The rule of nature and its strongest beasts. If you want a good preview of your utopian society, here it is: Somalia. I'd give you a ticket for this wonderful location, if you promise you never come back. You lotus-eaters always fail.


Full disclosure
I'm not an anarchist, and I have a lot of criticisms of anarchism.

You have no idea what you're talking about and need to seriously look at a book. I encourage you to do this before posting again because this post is extremely embarassing thanks to you total ignorance and unnecessary aggressiveness. There's a thing called the "anarchist faq" that you might want to look into.

[The Feral Underclass]

Sorry Chomsky, since Somalia is probably the only hell hole in which anarchy was preserve for more than a year, I used it as an example.

Could you please explain how Somalia is an example of anarchy?

[DROSL]

The Anarchist Tension, there's no government, which is the closest to anarchism the world will ever get.

[The Feral Underclass]

The Anarchist Tension, there's no government, which is the closest to anarchism the world will ever get.

The simple absence of government isn't what anarchy is. And for your information, the world has already been closer to anarchism than that, so your point is redundant.


There's no such thing as "anarchism" a.k.a. the rule of nothing

That isn't a definition of anarchism.

[#FF0000]

The Anarchist Tension, there's no government, which is the closest to anarchism the world will ever get.

Have you ever heard of the Communes during the Spanish Civil War?

[DROSL]

The anarchist tension, as I mentionned. Somalia is the closest thing to anarchism there is, and it's a failure. What do you want me to do? Create a fictional utopian country where everybody loves eachother and lives happy for ever? I'm a realist, I'll not invent something to make you feel anarchism is successful, because it isn't. I gave you Somalia, because it's the only country (Well, not even a country under international right) that fits the description of anarchism. It's like those pure-communists who come out and say The Soviet Union wasn't a communist state, well, it's probably the closest thing we had, ever.

"The simple absence of government isn't what anarchy is. And for your information, the world has already been closer to anarchism than that, so your point is redundant."

Please just indicate it to me. And I'd like an example where it was successful, where people didn't fight to death over bread and water...

[The Feral Underclass]

The anarchist tension, as I mentionned. Somalia is the closest thing to anarchism there is, and it's a failure.

Yes, I understand what you said and my response to you is that what happened in Somalia does not resemble anarchism on any level.


What do you want me to do?

Educate yourself.


Create a fictional utopian country where everybody loves eachother and lives happy for ever?

Also not what anarchists want.


I'm a realist, I'll not invent something to make you feel anarchism is successful, because it isn't.

You are not qualified to make statements about the successes or failurs of anarchism, since you don't know what anarchism is.


I gave you Somalia, because it's the only country (Well, not even a country under international right) that fits the description of anarchism.

But it doesn't fit the description of anarchism, that's the issue here.


"The simple absence of government isn't what anarchy is. And for your information, the world has already been closer to anarchism than that, so your point is redundant."

Please just indicate it to me. And I'd like an example where it was successful, where people didn't fight to death over bread and water...

It was successful in Spain and in the Ukraine and is currently being successful in Chiapas.

[#FF0000]

The anarchist tension, as I mentionned. Somalia is the closest thing to anarchism there is, and it's a failure

No. Somalia is nothing close to what anarchism is. I am going to ask you flat out and I'd appreciate it if you were honest: have you ever read anything about political anarchism, ever in your life?


Please just indicate it to me. And I'd like an example where it was successful, where people didn't fight to death over bread and water...

Anarchist communes in Spain. They were far from perfect, but they functioned fine.

[DROSL]

Have you ever heard of the Communes during the Spanish Civil War?

As I said, I'd like a place where it developed, not where it stagnated. You can answer Communes, but don't tell me they sent a man to the moon, because they didn't. They went back to antiquity, they lacked basic services and people lived in shitty houses where some died because of the poor quality of life.

[The Feral Underclass]

They went back to antiquity, they lacked basic services and people lived in shitty houses where some died because of the poor quality of life.

From where are you getting this information?

[#FF0000]

As I said, I'd like a place where it developed, not where it stagnated. You can answer Communes, but don't tell me they sent a man to the moon, because they didn't. They went back to antiquity, they lacked basic services and people lived in shitty houses where some died because of the poor quality of life.

Damn, son. Like I said, the communes had some big problems and left some big promises unfulfiled, but what you're saying here is flatly untrue.

Have you ever read a single thing about anarchist theory: yes or no?

[DROSL]

It was successful in Spain and in the Ukraine and is currently being successful in Chiapas.

Yes... I know a lot of Chiapas people that developed medicine treatments to fight cancer or any other kind of sickness.

[Skyhilist]

Also I'd prefer it if a mod could split all of the stuff started by DROSL's "Somalia is anarchist" bullshit because I don't want this thread to morph into that.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes... I know a lot of Chiapas people that developed medicine treatments to fight cancer or any other kind of sickness.

So your measure of success is cancer medicine? That's weird...You understand, right, that humans invented cancer treatments, not abstract political ideas...

[#FF0000]

Yes... I know a lot of Chiapas people that developed medicine treatments to fight cancer or any other kind of sickness.

Cool shifting goal-posts. Went from "show me an anarchist society where people lived and thrived" to "show me an anarchist society where people cured aids"

One more time: have you ever read a single page of anarchist theory? Have you ever seriously engaged with the ideas you're talking about?

[DROSL]

Damn, son. Like I said, the communes had some big problems and left some big promises unfulfiled, but what you're saying here is flatly untrue.

Have you ever read a single thing about anarchist theory: yes or no?

I did, but none gave me a satisfying answer. All of you guys all levitate around "freedom", but what does freedom gives you in a society where people aren't able to provide themselves good care?

Have you ever read Odyssey IX? You should, great lesson for anarchist or any fantasy dreamers like you.

Try to learn more about lotophaguses.

[#FF0000]

I did

Liar.


Have you ever read Odyssey IX? You should, great lesson for anarchist or any fantasy dreamers like you.


I'm not an anarchist. I am very critical of anarchism. I am someone who knows what he is talking about.

[DROSL]

Cool shifting goal-posts. Went from "show me an anarchist society where people lived and thrived" to "show me an anarchist society where people cured aids"

One more time: have you ever read a single page of anarchist theory? Have you ever seriously engaged with the ideas you're talking about?

Now, I think I've found the correct question. Name me any anarchist society that had any social development, a society that actually progressed through anarchy. It's like saying, I was cured through cancer.

[DROSL]

Liar.



I'm not an anarchist. I am very critical of anarchism. I am someone who knows what he is talking about.

This is why I said "fantasy dreamers"

[The Feral Underclass]

Now, I think I've found the correct question. Name me any anarchist society that had any social development, a society that actually progressed through anarchy. It's like saying, I was cured through cancer.

By this logic we should just remain a capitalist society, since most modern progress was invented under capitalism.

[DROSL]

Also I'd prefer it if a mod could split all of the stuff started by DROSL's "Somalia is anarchist" bullshit because I don't want this thread to morph into that.

Thanks for the freedom Chomsky, It shows your true colors. I think I'd have more press freedom on a nazi website. I never sweared nor used any offensive grammar or did I publicize any offensive content, still you wish to ban my rightful posts? You know, Chomsky, Internet is very much like an anarchist society and you, yourself, are playing a master within a group of slaves. How can I serve you, Milord?

[The Feral Underclass]

^This person is clearly a troll.

[#FF0000]

This is why I said "fantasy dreamers"

Because you can't engage in discussion without calling names like a big ol' baby, I know.

You normally also can't engage in discussion about a thing you don't know anything about but by god that ain't gonna stop you, is it?


Now, I think I've found the correct question. Name me any anarchist society that had any social development, a society that actually progressed through anarchy. It's like saying, I was cured through cancer.

I'm not even sure what you're saying, here, but people did live and thrive in the Spanish communes (despite the civil war) and people do live and thrive in Chiapas (though I think it might be a stretch to call them anarchist. Maybe anarch-ish).

EDIT: Oh hey you know communism is a stateless society too, right?

EDIT 2: damn son normally my troll radar is impeccable.

[DROSL]

By this logic we should just remain a capitalist society, since most modern progress was invented under capitalism.

Well, capitalism gave the tools for progress. Anarchy only gives chaos, and without peace, progress is unachievable.

[DROSL]

^This person is clearly a troll.

If troll is your definition of someone with lawful questions about a system that requires the abolition of a system through the creation of a systematical secret police. Then, here I am. From my point of view, you seem rather, confused.

[L.A.P.]

he's confused?

[DROSL]

Because you can't engage in discussion without calling names like a big ol' baby, I know.

You normally also can't engage in discussion about a thing you don't know anything about but by god that ain't gonna stop you, is it?



I'm not even sure what you're saying, here, but people did live and thrive in the Spanish communes (despite the civil war) and people do live and thrive in Chiapas (though I think it might be a stretch to call them anarchist. Maybe anarch-ish).

EDIT: Oh hey you know communism is a stateless society too, right?

EDIT 2: damn son normally my troll radar is impeccable.

I know that numbnuts, I'm pretty fond of Engels. Still I think statelessness, is somehow, an invitation for someone who wishes to take power. I myself would try to seize it, I'd name Chomsky Viceroy of the Moon. :grin:

[DROSL]

he's confused?

Isn't that how you describe someone who says shit that doesn't make any sense?

[L.A.P.]

how did anything TAT say not make sense? Maybe you have poor comprehension skills

I'll tell you what doesn't make sense:

Thanks for the freedom Chomsky, It shows your true colors. I think I'd have more press freedom on a nazi website. I never sweared nor used any offensive grammar or did I publicize any offensive content, still you wish to ban my rightful posts? You know, Chomsky, Internet is very much like an anarchist society and you, yourself, are playing a master within a group of slaves. How can I serve you, Milford?

[DROSL]

how did anything TAT say not make sense? Maybe you have poor comprehension skills

I'll tell you what doesn't make sense:

Thanks for the freedom Chomsky, It shows your true colors. I think I'd have more press freedom on a nazi website. I never sweared nor used any offensive grammar or did I publicize any offensive content, still you wish to ban my rightful posts? You know, Chomsky, Internet is very much like an anarchist society and you, yourself, are playing a master within a group of slaves. How can I serve you, Milford?

I was talking to Chom(too much S's)sky, the user, not the man. He suggested the possibility of referring me to a moderator. Probably, because he was tired of being mentally and intellectually raped. I then, explained I was an innocent writer and that he tried to play the King of a seemingly equalitarian forum. And that in reality, white nationalist forums would probably give me more freedom.

It's called sarcasm, you shrimp. And it's strong within me.

Is it enough clear for you ? ooorrr dooo I neeeed tooo speaeeeek sloooooweerrrr.

[L.A.P.]

I know who you were referring to, it just didn't make sense.

nice rape joke, you'll be banned soon

[Skyhilist]

I was talking to Chom(too much S's)sky, the user, not the man. He suggested the possibility of referring me to a moderator.

This is actually bullshit. I suggested that this thread be split because you caused it to go off topic. Splitting a thread means that a new one would created containing all the posts you made attempting to debate us about Somalia and all that shit. It doesn't mean I suggested you should be ban on the basis that you don't know anything. You should make an attempt to understand things before you make assumptions.

[#FF0000]

words

Just wanna make it very clear that it's the way you carry on like a child and can't handle a discussion without resorting to name-calling that will get you in trouble, not your hating on anarchists (which happens plenty around here -- I know I've done it)

[synthesis]

I love when people come here and accuse us of being out-of-touch and then go on to tell us how fascist Nazi Taliban Obama we're being by having moderators who moderate.

[DROSL]

I love when people come here and accuse us of being out-of-touch and then go on to tell us how fascist Nazi Taliban Obama we're being by having moderators who moderate.

Whatever *****es (I refer to the female dog term) , I'm out!

Anarchism truly has wonderful qualities, but also dangerous and deadly ones.

[DROSL]

Just wanna make it very clear that it's the way you carry on like a child and can't handle a discussion without resorting to name-calling that will get you in trouble, not your hating on anarchists (which happens plenty around here -- I know I've done it)

I carry on? Should I abandon after every challenges? It's a debate, I debate. If you don't wish to debate write a book and publish it anonymously so no one can reply. I just expose my ideas and say the creation of a secret police to fight people who do not wish to live in chaos is pretty much idiotic.

Ciao comrades.

[#FF0000]

I carry on? Should I abandon after every challenges? It's a debate, I debate.

No, you don't debate. You throw a tantrum.

[synthesis]

Whatever *****es (I refer to the female dog term) , I'm out!

Anarchism truly has wonderful qualities, but also dangerous and deadly ones.

At least you know when to fuck off. Thanks for the detailed explication about the aspects of anarchism that appeal to your worldview and the aspects that don't.

(Sorry about the deterioration of your thread, Chomthky.)

[DROSL]

No, you don't debate. You throw a tantrum.

Your kids provide facts when they go crazy?

[DROSL]

At least you know when to fuck off. Thanks for the detailed explication about the aspects of anarchism that appeal to your worldview and the aspects that don't.

(Sorry about the deterioration of your thread, Chomthky.)

Thanks for your comments and your overall ignorance.

[Skyhilist]

Jesus fucking Christ you're so goddamn incorrigible.

[#FF0000]

Your kids provide facts when they go crazy?

More than you do when you "debate"

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Yes... I know a lot of Chiapas people that developed medicine treatments to fight cancer or any other kind of sickness.

This is some ignoratio elenchi right here.

Whether people in the Chiapas are currently undergoing scientific procedures and tests for medicinal breakthroughs (and somehow obtaining the menagerie of chemicals and lab equipment needed for something on that scale) is irrelevant. The original argument was over whether these anarchistic governments, which you oddly compare to Somalia of all places, are applicable. You're changing the subject.

[DROSL]

This is some ignoratio elenchi right here.

Whether people in the Chiapas are currently undergoing scientific procedures and tests for medicinal breakthroughs (and somehow obtaining the menagerie of chemicals and lab equipment needed for something on that scale) is irrelevant. The original argument was over whether these anarchistic governments, which you oddly compare to Somalia of all places, are applicable. You're changing the subject.

I'm not changing subject, there's no social progressism within anarchy. I understand (Chiapas) that you may be talking about the native population, but that ain't really anarchist either, because a majority of these tribes usually have a very strict social hierarchy. With Elders at the top. I think it's a good idea to make the leaders of a group the most experienced, that I can agree on.

[synthesis]

Somalia (and late-90's Afghanistan and so on) would better understood as a collection of small states run by warlords under one meaningless "national" umbrella than as somehow "stateless."

[DROSL]

Well, there's also what defines a state, is it a country or just government, or even just a leader?

Good night synthesis and everyone who wishes my death on this forum ;)

I surrender to the anarchist forces of revleft. lol

its 3:38 in the morning, I must sleep or i'll become a zombie.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I'm not changing subjectt, there's no social progressism within anarchy.

Then you changed the subject. Lest you forget so soon, the original argument was about whether Anarchistic governments had existed and were applicable, not whether they were 'socially progressive':



"The simple absence of government isn't what anarchy is. And for your information, the world has already been closer to anarchism than that, so your point is redundant."

Please just indicate it to me. And I'd like an example where it was successful, where people didn't fight to death over bread and water...




It was successful in Spain and in the Ukraine and is currently being successful in Chiapas.

also:


I understand (Chiapas) that you may be talking about the native population, but that ain't really anarchist either, because a majority of these tribes usually have a very strict social hierarchy. With Elders at the top. I think it's a good idea to make the leaders of a group the most experienced, that I can agree on.

I thought it was quite clear that they were referring to the Zapatista movement. I would like you to reference the 'strict social hierarchy' that this self-proclaimed 'anarchist influenced' organisation expresses.

[Quail]

I was talking to Chom(too much S's)sky, the user, not the man. He suggested the possibility of referring me to a moderator. Probably, because he was tired of being mentally and intellectually raped. I then, explained I was an innocent writer and that he tried to play the King of a seemingly equalitarian forum. And that in reality, white nationalist forums would probably give me more freedom.

It's called sarcasm, you shrimp. And it's strong within me.

Is it enough clear for you ? ooorrr dooo I neeeed tooo speaeeeek sloooooweerrrr.


Whatever *****es (I refer to the female dog term) , I'm out!

Anarchism truly has wonderful qualities, but also dangerous and deadly ones.
Verbal warning for prejudiced language and flaming. If you're still even here.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In case this poster returns:


Humanity is weak, there's always someone who decides for a group. Anarchism is probably more of a reactionary doctrine rather than a progressive one, if you want to go back before antiquity, I'd order a time machine. There's no such thing as no state, I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings, but Humanity isn't enough mentaly advanced yet, to be able to direct itself. After all, we're just animals. And there's still learning to do.If you believe this, then you aren't a communist either. The main debate between Marxists and Anarchists isn't "statelessness" but how working class movements can achieve it.

Humans are animals, animals who can change their relationships to eachother and to how they produce what they need to survive. That's the Marxist understanding of human societies in general -- what's yours?

[#FF0000]

I'm not changing subject, there's no social progressism within anarchy. I understand (Chiapas) that you may be talking about the native population, but that ain't really anarchist either, because a majority of these tribes usually have a very strict social hierarchy. With Elders at the top. I think it's a good idea to make the leaders of a group the most experienced, that I can agree on.

That is not what people are talking about when they're talking about Chiapas.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I was talking to Chom(too much S's)sky, the user, not the man. He suggested the possibility of referring me to a moderator. Probably, because he was tired of being mentally and intellectually raped. I then, explained I was an innocent writer and that he tried to play the King of a seemingly equalitarian forum. And that in reality, white nationalist forums would probably give me more freedom.

What in the actual fuck? I would like for you to articulate to me how and in what capacity Somalia is Anarchist. Especially considering it does have an official government as it currently stands.

Also, more freedom? To do what? Be a complete toolbag for no reason? Or is that being to charitable considering toolbags actually serve a purpose?


It's called sarcasm, you shrimp. And it's strong within me.

Shrimp? Before you proceed to hoot, howl and grab your nutz like the oh, so big boy that you are; you should probably verify that's you're not a sea pig fucking about in the shark tank.


Is it enough clear for you ? ooorrr dooo I neeeed tooo speaeeeek sloooooweerrrr.

:rolleyes:

[helot]

This thread amuses me. First bit of amusement is the OP isinuating people are stupid despite the fact they themselves have a confused and ignorant understanding of anarchism. The second is that i think it's pretty obvious that OP is a would-be bourgeois hence the claim that they'd try to subordinate members of a stateless society to his/her rule.

[Comrade Jacob]

An-caps not Anarchists, Anarchists are leftists.

[Sheepy]

As I said, I'd like a place where it developed, not where it stagnated. You can answer Communes, but don't tell me they sent a man to the moon, because they didn't. They went back to antiquity, they lacked basic services and people lived in shitty houses where some died because of the poor quality of life.

You realize that it was the 1930's and that there was a WAR going on, right?

No?

[Sea]

If Somalia is anarchist, just wait until you hear what North Korea is!