Log in

View Full Version : Anarchism is an excuse for mass orgies



dying2live769
11th March 2004, 15:39
Anarchism is stupid. What the hell could any society gain from having anarchy? What kind of technological advances happen during anarchy? None. Seriously, laws are required for any decent society. I mean, with anarchy you'd get shot walking to walmart. No, wait, there wouldn't be a walmart. There would be no further technological advances because there would be no real economic system. "Gimme a chicken or I'm gonna shoot you", yeah, that's a real stable economy. Anarchy was what we had when man was first evolving. Anarchy makes no sense what so ever; it's just erasing how many years of advancement in government systems and philosphies. It's completely pointless and ridiculous. The only good thing that would ever come out of anarchism is mass orgies in the streets. Hmm, maybe I'll become on an anarchist...

CommunistRob
11th March 2004, 15:40
Mass Orgies..........


Hmmmmm....

RedAnarchist
11th March 2004, 15:52
Mass orgies eh?

i wonder what that would be like..... :P

Lets have a che-lives orgy! :D

So i diidnt know what an orgy was! :blink:

BOZG
11th March 2004, 16:44
Do you actually know what anarchism is?

redstar2000
11th March 2004, 17:27
Anarchy makes no sense what so ever; it's just erasing how many years of advancement in government systems and philosophies. It's completely pointless and ridiculous. The only good thing that would ever come out of anarchism is mass orgies in the streets. Hmm, maybe I'll become an anarchist...

I've heard there are guys who think with their dicks...but this is really going too far. :lol:

In fact, it's going to Opposing Ideologies where it belongs.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

monkeydust
11th March 2004, 17:30
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 04:39 PM
Anarchism is stupid. What the hell could any society gain from having anarchy? What kind of technological advances happen during anarchy? None. Seriously, laws are required for any decent society. I mean, with anarchy you'd get shot walking to walmart. No, wait, there wouldn't be a walmart. There would be no further technological advances because there would be no real economic system. "Gimme a chicken or I'm gonna shoot you", yeah, that's a real stable economy. Anarchy was what we had when man was first evolving. Anarchy makes no sense what so ever; it's just erasing how many years of advancement in government systems and philosphies. It's completely pointless and ridiculous. The only good thing that would ever come out of anarchism is mass orgies in the streets. Hmm, maybe I'll become on an anarchist...
idiot........................

The Feral Underclass
11th March 2004, 17:35
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 04:39 PM
Anarchism is stupid.
Interesting. I am assuming, no, in fact I am certain you have absolutly no idea what anarchism is. Asserting things like this as fact does not help you and just makes you look silly. Dont do it!


What the hell could any society gain from having anarchy?

Freedom! Not just social freedom ie the freedom to choose to live the way you wanted to live but freedom from sexism, homophobia, racism and violence. Also politically because the present political system wishes to maintain the rule of a plutocracy [a rich ruling elite]. The state would also not exist because the state causes oppression and perpetuates the existence of this rich ruling elite. Economically you would gain freedom because you would not live in want. Meaning you would be provided for with basic human rights such as food, electricity and water. Instead of working for a company to make profit, people would work together for the benifit of all. We have a huge amount to gain. Fundamental and profound gains. Anarchism wishes to re-organize society so that we can live in peace and without wanting basic things which effectivly we should have for free.


What kind of technological advances happen during anarchy? None.

Actually that isn't true. Of course society would want to advance in order to better our lives. However instead of these endevours being made by corporations to be packaged and sold to us they would be done for the benifit of society as a whole for free. We would organize the production and produce technological goods for everyone, not for those who could afford it.


Seriously, laws are required for any decent society.

No, laws are designed to protect private property and maintain the control of a ruling class.


I mean, with anarchy you'd get shot walking to walmart.

I doubt very much that walmart would still exist but I take your point. Why would people shoot people? Because there was no law to say it was wrong? If that was the case, why do people get shot everyday now. There are laws in place which says that it is not acceptable yet it still happens. Of course it is wrong to shoot someone but the question is why does that happen? In order to achieve anarchism people must have a level of understanding about how they as individuals exist within the world. Simply by having an anarchist society the idea of shooting people would not exist. People would understand why shooting is wrong and indeed there would be no need for it. Most of the shootings that occur are over property in some way. Whether it be over money, drugs or because you woke some owner of a house you were robbing. These things happen because people are so alienated from society that the only way they can achieve a certain social status is if they commit crime. The nature of the economic system we live in, capitalism, means that people are forced into certain situations in order to survive. People need money to live and therefore stealing someones money and indeed shooting them means that that can happen. People loose any sense of decency because they are forced to make sure that they survive. Fuck everyone else, I have to do good and many many times that results in people being killed.

You are asserting by what you say that human beings are innately evil and that is why they commit crimes like this. I assert that human beings are not like this and in fact are forced by their social conditions to commit these acts.


"Gimme a chicken or I'm gonna shoot you", yeah, that's a real stable economy.

There are many different types of anarchism which advocate different forms of economic managment. I am an anarcho-communist, which is one of the most popular form of anarchism and in my opinion the economy would be organized along the the famous saying of Marx "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." This means that the means of production would be turned into 'socially necessary work' ie making bread or producing electricity would be deemed as socially necessary. We need these things to survive. So instead of having factories which over produce goods to be sold, we would have people commiting themselves to working a certain amount of hours in an electricity station or a bread factory so that the work they did benifited society as a whole. In return they would be provided for. This would mean that if you did 10 hours a week socially necessary work you would recieve a house, food and electricity in return. It is a logical and fair way to organize society and something which could be very stable.


Anarchy was what we had when man was first evolving.

In a sense yes, and it worked very well. Unfortunatly being human beings and having this existence only once it was difficult for us to work out exactly how to control our lives and evolve our economic needs. We have now ended up with capitalism. It is not unsuprising and simply a fact of evolution. However, this does not mean that we should remain like this. We as humans now have the ability to concieve any idea and have the ability to see it through. Capitalism dosnt work and now we have to change it. We now have to evolve again to the final stage of history where we can live freely as I have mentioned.


Anarchy makes no sense what so ever; it's just erasing how many years of advancement in government systems and philosphies. It's completely pointless and ridiculous.

That is because you nop nothing about anarchism except what you have heard on the media or from someone else who also knows nothing about anarchism. Anarchism makes perfect sense if you understand it, so I suggest you read further on it.

Che-Lives Dictionary (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=21255) This is a start which provides links to basic, intermediate and advanced information about anarchism. I would suggest reading the FAQ's, basic anarchist principles and anarchism for dummies. If you have questions about it ask them. Dont assert things to be fact as you have done without actually knowing what you are talking about.

This website is for learning. Learn! It will help you understand the world better.


The only good thing that would ever come out of anarchism is mass orgies in the streets.

This is possible if it is what people want. I think it's a great idea!

eyedrop
11th March 2004, 18:53
Don't you get tired by writing all those lectures over and over again TAT. I can't seem to find where you find the willpower to do it, thats far more difficult to understand than anarchism.

The Feral Underclass
11th March 2004, 18:55
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 07:53 PM
Don't you get tired by writing all those lectures over and over again TAT. I can't seem to find where you find the willpower to do it, thats far more difficult to understand than anarchism.
You have to help people learn and there is always the possibility that these people may become anarchists, go and join an anarchist group and help fight...

antieverything
11th March 2004, 19:14
Mass orgies, eh? Seeing as orgies seem to be the only way I'll ever get laid, it sounds like a plan.

Can I become an anarchist...again?

Rasta Sapian
11th March 2004, 19:51
Will you think that anarchism is stupid when they burn down down walmart and mcdonald's, Break into your bourgoise home, liberating all of your posessions?
The only orogie will be you and your family getting raped!

The Feral Underclass
11th March 2004, 20:11
Originally posted by Rasta [email protected] 11 2004, 08:51 PM
The only orogie will be you and your family getting raped!
Tried really hard but couldnt find where this was funny...

Morpheus
12th March 2004, 01:37
dying2live769,

You haven't actually read much anarchist theory, have you?

CommunistRob
12th March 2004, 01:49
Anarchism is ridiculous.Govermnets are there to protect human freedom.You don't simply destroy something because its causing you a problem you repair it or replace it.And in this case it would be a much better idea to replace it with something better.Thats like having a bad tire and deciding not to drive without a tire becuase it is causing you problem, your not going to get very far, in fact most likely absolutely nowhere.And there would be no peace if there was anarchism, there would be no system of trade because that could techinically count as a system of control.Oh and no language because that would mean everyone has to learn it and that would also mean there is some order.


Anarchism-Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority

Som
12th March 2004, 02:21
Oh and no language because that would mean everyone has to learn it and that would also mean there is some order.

Ah, the anarcho-literalists, because for the first 95% of human history no one could talk untill they invented cops and politicians, to shoot us into the almighty enlightenment of language.

The Feral Underclass
12th March 2004, 08:21
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 02:49 AM
Anarchism is ridiculous.

Yes...you dont actually know what you're talking about.


Govermnets are there to protect human freedom.

I think that's a very naive opinion to have! Governments are by no means here to protect our freedoms. Unless your definition of freedom is limited to capitalism. Governments are not designed to give us freedoms. They are designed to maintain the rule of a system or of a ruling elite. Governments exist now to perpetrate capitalism and those who control the system. We have very limited freedoms and a very select democracy which isnt actually a democracy at all. Our leaders are no accountable to the people and they have dictatorial powers which are changed every four or five years. And all that is changed is the name, not the power.


don't simply destroy something because its causing you a problem you repair it or replace it.

The point of anarchism is to create workers liberation. You can not achieve that using a state or a government that controls it. The purpose of a government and of a state is to maintain the rule of the government and of the state. I assume you are a Leninist. In a Leninist state the ruling class, the vangaurd, control the state which apparently is being used to liberate the workers. This simply can not happen. The state is designed to keep the ruling elite, or the vangaurd, in power. That is what a state is, that is its function. Even the theory states it is necessary that the ruling elite remain in power in order to destroy the bourgeoisie. Therefore the state has to been maintained and even increased in order for the ruling elite to achieve their objective. But if you perpetrate a state you have to take freedoms away. In order to fight the bourgeoisie using a state you have to suppress dissent, regardless of what class it is. In order to give economic freedom to the workers you first have to centralize it into the hands of the ruling elite. How then, after doing all these things, can the state suddenly stop functioning. How can the state lead to workers liberation? How can you give liberation while taking liberty away. How can you give economic freedom while taking centralized control of it?

The concept of government and the concept of state are antithetical to workers liberation. The only was the working class will be liberated is if they smash the state and organize society for themselves.


Thats like having a bad tire and deciding not to drive without a tire becuase it is causing you problem, your not going to get very far, in fact most likely absolutely nowhere.

No actually it's like having a bad tire and then replacing it with another bad tire. The state is the problem. The fact the state exists means that the system of capitalism and oppression exists. In leninism the fact that a state exists again means that there can be no liberation, politically or economically. The state and government is the problem and you can not simply replace them with a different name in the hope that they will be better. A state can not change its function a government can not change its function. They are specifically designed for one purpose. To maintain a ruling class.


And there would be no peace if there was anarchism, there would be no system of trade because that could techinically count as a system of control.

This is a common misconception. Anarchism does not mean lack of organization. There are some anarchists who do advocate a lack of organization but that is simpy a variant to what anarchism actually is. Anarchism advocates organization but it does not advocate centralized organization in the form of a state and of a government. Anarchism believes that these concepts hinder working class progress and in fact are the reasons behind workers oprpession. There is also no logical explination why centralized state authority is any more effective than collective organization.


Oh and no language because that would mean everyone has to learn it and that would also mean there is some order.

I find it very sweet how people come on here shouting their mouths off, asserting left right and centre about things they clearly know nothing about it. I understand that the media portray certain things in certain ways but I think the point of being a revolutionary is to learn, be open minded and think you know everything about it.


Anarchism-Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority

God forbid living in a society where coercisn, control and authority didnt exist anymore :o

CommunistRob
12th March 2004, 16:06
You freaks.This discussion will onyl prove that the majority of anarchists are nothing but homosexual pshycopaths.I hope to never come back to this discussion ever agian I can't stand anarchism and there chaotic beliefs.Once Again Freeeaaakkkksss



Anarchism=Same SEx Mass Orgies

dying2live769
12th March 2004, 16:07
Lemme quote TAT directly from your "Sexual Liberation" post:

I use to live with my partner and two other men and when ever we got bored we would all have sex with each other. No one thought about anything. There were no strings attached, we simply just had sex. It was fun and we had a laugh.

LMAO... I told you anarchy was an excuse for orgies... that's not a very big orgy, but still. The only reason you want anarchy is so you can do that in the street.


Freedom! Not just social freedom ie the freedom to choose to live the way you wanted to live but freedom from sexism, homophobia, racism and violence.

Hah! If there was anarchy, I could see hundreds of people just taking to the streets and killing homosexuals. Why? Because with anarchy, little groups would develop based on common race or ideology. Like "Gays should die" or "We're gonna kill Asians". Anarchy will just increase these prejudices.

[QUOTE]Actually that isn't true. Of course society would want to advance in order to better our lives.[QUOTE]

I don't think so, any advancements would come for basic survival... there wouldn't be internet, who would do the maintenance? I just don't understand.

BOZG
12th March 2004, 16:41
CommunistRob

You are aware that communism is a stateless, classless society ie an ANARCHIST society?

The Feral Underclass
12th March 2004, 18:16
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 05:06 PM
You freaks.This discussion will onyl prove that the majority of anarchists are nothing but homosexual pshycopaths.I hope to never come back to this discussion ever agian I can't stand anarchism and there chaotic beliefs.Once Again Freeeaaakkkksss



Anarchism=Same SEx Mass Orgies
Very interesting. I lay out a perfectly logical argument to refute you're, well, bollocks, and you come back with this...very well thought out...I commend you on your literary skills...Thank god the working class have you on their side :rolleyes:

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr
12th March 2004, 18:26
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 01:41 PM
CommunistRob

You are aware that communism is a stateless, classless society ie an ANARCHIST society?
An anarchist's view of a communist society is a stateless society, but a Leninists view is...slightly different to say the least. A government needs to be there to manage the economy and the keep civil order.

BOZG
12th March 2004, 18:31
No both Leninists and Anarchists goal is the same, the destruction of the state, it is on how it can be achieved that the differences arise.

Misodoctakleidist
12th March 2004, 18:37
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 07:26 PM
An anarchist's view of a communist society is a stateless society, but a Leninists view is...slightly different to say the least. A government needs to be there to manage the economy and the keep civil order.
Do you even know what Leninism is?

The Feral Underclass
12th March 2004, 18:41
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 05:07 PM
Lemme quote TAT directly from your "Sexual Liberation" post:

I use to live with my partner and two other men and when ever we got bored we would all have sex with each other. No one thought about anything. There were no strings attached, we simply just had sex. It was fun and we had a laugh.

LMAO... I told you anarchy was an excuse for orgies... that's not a very big orgy, but still. The only reason you want anarchy is so you can do that in the street.
That's not why I want anarchy at all. I thought I made that clear in my lenghty reply to your first post. Try reading it. You might learn something.


Hah! If there was anarchy, I could see hundreds of people just taking to the streets and killing homosexuals. Why? Because with anarchy, little groups would develop based on common race or ideology. Like "Gays should die" or "We're gonna kill Asians". Anarchy will just increase these prejudices.

You dont seem to understand. In order to achieve anarchy these kind of prejuidices must not exist anymore. If those prejudicies existed then anarchism wouldnt. Anarchism is a society based on co-operation and freedom from these sorts of things.


I don't think so, any advancements would come for basic survival... there wouldn't be internet, who would do the maintenance? I just don't understand.

No you dont understand, but that dosnt mean that you can't. Of course things which were absolutly necessary would be dealt with first. Of course the process directly after a revolution will be slow so things such as the internet will take time to get going again. That does not mean we can not have it. If we want internet then we simply have it. Those who wish to make internet and those who enjoy working with the internet will create the necessary technology and maintainance for us to have it. But rather it be soemthing which is packaged and sold it would be something for everyone for free. Just the way it should be.

Please stop being arrogant. If you want to actually learn about anarchism then fine. read the resources I gave you and learn about it. Stopping pretending you know what you're talking about.

The Feral Underclass
12th March 2004, 18:45
Originally posted by MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr+Mar 12 2004, 07:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr @ Mar 12 2004, 07:26 PM)
[email protected] 12 2004, 01:41 PM
CommunistRob

You are aware that communism is a stateless, classless society ie an ANARCHIST society?
An anarchist&#39;s view of a communist society is a stateless society, but a Leninists view is...slightly different to say the least. A government needs to be there to manage the economy and the keep civil order. [/b]
read &#39;State and Revolution.&#39; Lenin clearly says that the goal for him is a statless society, classless society "When there is a state there will be no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state."

BOZG
12th March 2004, 18:51
Quickly everyone save this page.....we can manipulate TAT&#39;s words in support of Leninism ;)

STI
12th March 2004, 19:30
OMG&#33; TAT is a Leninist Reformist cappie fuck and he even admitted it&#33; :P

BOZG
12th March 2004, 19:34
That&#39;s the spirit comrade.

STI
12th March 2004, 19:47
[insert capitalized revolutionary shout here]&#33;

I love how we took a real, intellectual, arguably even intense discussion, disarmed it, and turned it into a big joke. I say we employ this tactic more often (only when we&#39;re winning the discussions, of couse, which is often).

The Feral Underclass
12th March 2004, 19:56
*coughs nervously*

I have always maintained that Lenin and even leninism does wish to achieve communism...It&#39;s just the process of getting there which is fundamentally flawed. Lenin was wrong...

[I think I was too hasty in trying to prove MM wrong :unsure: ]

STI
12th March 2004, 19:58
[I think I was too hasty in trying to prove MM wrong ]

Well, this is EXACTLY the type of behavior we can expect from an admitted Leninist Reformist cappie fuck. :P

New Tolerance
12th March 2004, 21:46
LMAO... I told you anarchy was an excuse for orgies... that&#39;s not a very big orgy, but still. The only reason you want anarchy is so you can do that in the street.


LOL, shit, this is hilarious. :lol: :lol: :lol:

SittingBull47
22nd March 2004, 19:16
anarchy isn&#39;t chaos. That sounds like a conservative definition to me.... <_<

insurgency03
24th March 2004, 23:03
not many, but do we really need technological advances in a utopian societym as anarchist philosophy tends to say sometimes

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr
25th March 2004, 01:39
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 03:31 PM
No both Leninists and Anarchists goal is the same, the destruction of the state, it is on how it can be achieved that the differences arise.
Suuuure, lets destroy the state soon as we breed people to subconsciously do what is best for society. Regardless of what Lenin said, he created the one party democratic centralist state.

BOZG
25th March 2004, 06:19
Regardless of what Lenin said, he created the one party democratic centralist state.

The democratic centralist state is a necessary step in Leninism, even Marx advocated centralisism. This does not mean that the withering of the state away is refuted (thought the anarchists disagree). You really should stop calling yourself a Leninist until you actually know anything.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr
25th March 2004, 10:51
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 03:19 AM

Regardless of what Lenin said, he created the one party democratic centralist state.

The democratic centralist state is a necessary step in Leninism, even Marx advocated centralisism. This does not mean that the withering of the state away is refuted (thought the anarchists disagree). You really should stop calling yourself a Leninist until you actually know anything.
Perhaps you should stop being so dogmatic.

Guest1
25th March 2004, 13:41
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 06:51 AM
Perhaps you should stop being so dogmatic.
Hah&#33; A self-proclaimed "Leninist" complaining about dogma :D

BOZG
25th March 2004, 16:14
How exactly am I being dogmatic? There are certain parts of any ideology which are fundamental and do not change with the times, the withering away of the state being one.

Once again, you should actually read about Leninism before you open your mouth or actually it would be better for us all, if you just stayed quiet.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr
26th March 2004, 03:17
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 01:14 PM
How exactly am I being dogmatic? There are certain parts of any ideology which are fundamental and do not change with the times, the withering away of the state being one.

Once again, you should actually read about Leninism before you open your mouth or actually it would be better for us all, if you just stayed quiet.
Suuuure, the state will wither away some day *yawns*. So what if I support the idea of a state? That would make me a Stalinist? But I don&#39;t like Stalin. A Stalinist who hates Stalin? WTF?&#33; I like a SOME of Stalin&#39;s socio-economic policies, but oppose the judicial system, how he ran the country with dictorial powers, how he purged the government (you might be able the argue that he didn&#39;t kill 20 million people, but don&#39;t even try argueing that he didn&#39;t have some government people whacked), all the "motherland" rhetoric, and how he didn&#39;t do things like ban alcohol or the death penalty. Damn you people, can&#39;t I just take the middle of the road here?

Guest1
26th March 2004, 04:28
Look, the state is irreconcilable with the Marxist goal of the elimination of classes. Now, whether you think a strong state can lead to the Communist stage of stateless, classless society or not doesn&#39;t matter. That&#39;s the separation between Leninism and other forms of Marxism.

However, it&#39;s a completely different thing all together to dispute the need for the elimination of the state at all. That&#39;s in opposition to all forms of Marxism. That isn&#39;t even compatible with Leninism. It&#39;s authoritarian state-socalism, but not Leninism.

bombeverything
26th March 2004, 09:25
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 05:06 PM
You freaks.This discussion will onyl prove that the majority of anarchists are nothing but homosexual pshycopaths.I hope to never come back to this discussion ever agian I can&#39;t stand anarchism and there chaotic beliefs.Once Again Freeeaaakkkksss



Anarchism=Same SEx Mass Orgies

Haha what a loser.

BOZG
26th March 2004, 12:48
Che y Marijuana cleared it up.