Totalitarianism

[James]

These are the basic "guidlines", if you will, please take the time to read - i've spent ages writing all these out!!!

I'd also be intrested to see the stalinists repsonses...like what do you think "lenin"?




·Formation of a secret police force to gain access to suspected organisations and nip any potential revolution in the bud.

·Public meetings, strikes and demonstrations banned.

·Close scrutiny or prohibition of associations of people with a common intrest, such as religious groups, trade unions, people of a different race, or people from a region speaking a different language from the official language of the state.

·Indoctrination of children and young people – education and training them to think highly of their leader, the government and its politics – even to the extent of making the leader the subject of a cult – a superhuman person to be adored and worshiped.

· Constant propaganda – political and patriotic speeches, triumphal pictures, pamphlets, political broadcasts, adverts, colourful posters, exciting parades, folk festivals, educational exhibitions, military displays – in praise of the ruling party and its leader of leaders.

·Young people conscripted (forced) to serve in the armed forces to undergo military training – partly to defend the country if attacked and partly to ensure they are well disciplined and ready to obey orders.

·All citizens expected to die for their country of for their leader if necessary.

·Elimination of individualism – of allowing people to think for themselves or to think of themselves as being unique or different from other people – such as by;
-Making people wear the same uniform,
-Forcing them to live with others in a camp or training institution,
-Making them take part in anonymous torchlight parades,
-Organising mass rallies and folk festivals,
-Swamping public and domestic buildings with symbols (such as nazi eagle or swastika),
-Making everyone greet each other with the same salute, such as “Heil Hitler!” – an idea which the nazis borrowed from Mussolini’s Fascist Italy.

·Strong emphasis on militarism. Leader usually seen in public wearing military uniform. National flags and an easily identifiable symbol of the regime seen in all public places.

·Military parades a frequent occurrence accompanied by drums, thumping marches and loud music.

·People educated to be patriots, prepared to put the interests of their country before their own interests and above all other countries.

·Concentration camps, labour camps or special prisons built to retain and re-educate opponents of the regime.

·Government by decree – laws are past by the dictator who literally dictates what people must, can and cannot do. Parliaments, if they exist, are only there to rubberstamp the edicts of the dictator.

·Usually only one leader – Der Fuhrer (Germany), Il Duce (Italy), El Caudillo (Spain) – all have exactly the same meaning – The Leader

·Often, but not always, the regime is racist – persecuting a minority because of its colour, origins, language, religion, heritage or culture.



James

[Mac OS Revolutionary]

Apparently they would enjoy this sort of government.

And just because a communist is totaltarian it does not automaticaly make him/her a Stalinist.

[James]

I know, i was just wondering what the "stalinists" would make of this

[lenin]

·Formation of a secret police force to gain access to suspected organisations and nip any potential revolution in the bud.

YES

·Public meetings, strikes and demonstrations banned.

NO

Indoctrination of children and young people – education and training them to think highly of their leader, the government and its politics – even to the extent of making the leader the subject of a cult – a superhuman person to be adored and worshiped.

YES- exept about the cult of personality. thats a point of stalnism i don't like.


· Constant propaganda – political and patriotic speeches, triumphal pictures, pamphlets, political broadcasts, adverts, colourful posters, exciting parades, folk festivals, educational exhibitions, military displays – in praise of the ruling party and its leader of leaders.

YES

·Young people conscripted (forced) to serve in the armed forces to undergo military training – partly to defend the country if attacked and partly to ensure they are well disciplined and ready to obey orders.

YES

·All citizens expected to die for their country of for their leader if necessary.

NO not for their leader, maybe for their country

·Elimination of individualism – of allowing people to think for themselves or to think of themselves as being unique or different from other people – such as by;
-Making people wear the same uniform,
-Forcing them to live with others in a camp or training institution,
-Making them take part in anonymous torchlight parades,
-Organising mass rallies and folk festivals,
-Swamping public and domestic buildings with symbols (such as nazi eagle or swastika),
-Making everyone greet each other with the same salute, such as “Heil Hitler!” – an idea which the nazis borrowed from Mussolini’s Fascist Italy.

NO to most of these points. i agree with the last three. but people would call each other comrade and not salute.

·Strong emphasis on militarism. Leader usually seen in public wearing military uniform. National flags and an easily identifiable symbol of the regime seen in all public places.

YES

·People educated to be patriots, prepared to put the interests of their country before their own interests and above all other countries.

YES AND NO educated to be patriots but not to put there country above others

·Concentration camps, labour camps or special prisons built to retain and re-educate opponents of the regime.

YES AND NO, define opponents of the regime.

·Government by decree – laws are past by the dictator who literally dictates what people must, can and cannot do. Parliaments, if they exist, are only there to rubberstamp the edicts of the dictator.

NO

·Usually only one leader – Der Fuhrer (Germany), Il Duce (Italy), El Caudillo (Spain) – all have exactly the same meaning – The Leader

NO

·Often, but not always, the regime is racist – persecuting a minority because of its colour, origins, language, religion, heritage or culture.

NO certain groups will be potential suspects more than others, but noone will be oppressed simply because of their race.

of course, i am not that stupid james. i realise most of these points are main objectives of fascist governments througout history but they are also main objectives of communist govermnets throughout histroy.

[Michael De Panama]

Goodness, you MUST read 1984. Go pick it up now.

[Capitalist Imperial]

What is the main idea or premise of 1984?

[PunkRawker677]

Its an attack against totalitarianism. Depicting it in its most extreme form.

[Michael De Panama]

It's basically a Stalinist anti-utopia. It's as bad as a government could ever get.

[RedSovietCCCP]

Lenin lived in the soviet Union which was Totalitarian. And a lot of people I know have. They loved there country and they loved that it was the biggest superpower. I would love to be part of somthing like that!!!!

[Michael De Panama]

Well, most of us sane people would much rather be able to live our lives the way we want to, rather than live the way the dictatorship orders us to. I don't know about the rest of you, but that's the whole reason I became a communist. I don't want to be ordered around by someone, be it because they have money or political power.

The USSR was not the biggest superpower, either. If it was, the USA would have fallen.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from RedSovietCCCP on 8:02 pm on June 7, 2002
Lenin lived in the soviet Union which was Totalitarian. And a lot of people I know have. They loved there country and they loved that it was the biggest superpower. I would love to be part of somthing like that!!!!


As panama said, 2nd biggest superpower. Long live the USA!!! Land of the free, home of the Brave!!!

[Xvall]

Yeah, Yeah... I'll have you know.. That the only people who think that America is great, are people who LIVE in America..

[Capitalist Imperial]

BS, drake, this board dowen't represent the world!!! There are millions of world citizens that love america, why do you think we have the worlds largest immigration? And have had the largest immigration for at least 100 years? I'm sure if it was such a scam the word would have gotten out 100 years ago. People literally risk their lives too get here, from OTHER COUNTRIES!!! So don't tell me that it is americans exclusively that like the USA.

[Michael De Panama]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 8:34 pm on June 7, 2002
As panama said, 2nd biggest superpower. Long live the USA!!! Land of the free, home of the Brave!!!


Ugh. I wasn't trying to feed you fodder for your nationalism.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Michael De Panama on 8:46 pm on June 7, 2002


Ugh. I wasn't trying to feed you fodder for your nationalism.

LOL, I figured you weren't, I was in the right place at the right time.

[James]

Actually most of the people in the UK that like the USA, are trendies. ie, stuck up kids who buy all the brand names, watch all the films and eat in all the chain cafe's. Land of freedom...hehe

[guerrillaradio]

I was about to say the exact same thing James. One of the few things I share with the majority of people I know (mostly being conservative rightists or apolitical) is a dislike of American monoculture and what the country stands for. Drake's right, most Europeans consider Americans to be arrogant, close-minded and rude. But hey, I can't say I use such generalisations myself...

[James]

Or fat tourists that don't know anything.

[Guest]

Capitalist Emperialist,

"1984" is about a place and time where electronic surveillance reigns supreme. Socialist fascism is the form of government that everyone is forced to abide by. Words no longer have any meaning as the authorities have diminished the language in order to control thought. Many times good words are twisted around to mean the opposite of what they stand for. Propaganda is everywhere as people's political leanings are constantly questioned. Everyone must present the illusion that they believe Eng-Socialism (the political system) and have complete party loyalty at all times. During the book history is often rewritten in order to fit the politics of the day. Wars and enemies are perpetuated in order to instill fear and nationalism in the society. Shortages persist and the general living conditions are sub-standard by todays yard-stick. Classism is used as a way of dividing the people.
But fret not, there is a revolution in the making. The enemies of humanity can not control the hearts and minds of men. Love can not be extinguished by the state. Basic human emotion can not be controled by men. Will good triuph over this sort of evil? Will freedom defeat fascism? Please read the book in order to find out. You might be surprised at the outcome. An excellent representation of socialism in its purest form.
"1984" should be required reading for all 7th graders. If you like this book, read "Animal Farm" by the same author, George Orwell. Another book that should be read and contrasted to "1984" is "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. Also try "We the Living" by Ayn Rand.

[Anarcho]

Just out of curiousitly, since this seems to have taken a veer off into Literature, what do most of the comraden here think of the government described in "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlein? Not the movie, which was Hollywood pap, but the actual novel?

[libereco]

Quote: from Guest on 8:21 am on June 8, 2002
Capitalist Emperialist,

"1984" is about a place and time where electronic surveillance reigns supreme. Socialist fascism is the form of government that everyone is forced to abide by. Words no longer have any meaning as the authorities have diminished the language in order to control thought. Many times good words are twisted around to mean the opposite of what they stand for. Propaganda is everywhere as people's political leanings are constantly questioned. Everyone must present the illusion that they believe Eng-Socialism (the political system) and have complete party loyalty at all times. During the book history is often rewritten in order to fit the politics of the day. Wars and enemies are perpetuated in order to instill fear and nationalism in the society. Shortages persist and the general living conditions are sub-standard by todays yard-stick. Classism is used as a way of dividing the people.
But fret not, there is a revolution in the making. The enemies of humanity can not control the hearts and minds of men. Love can not be extinguished by the state. Basic human emotion can not be controled by men. Will good triuph over this sort of evil? Will freedom defeat fascism? Please read the book in order to find out. You might be surprised at the outcome. An excellent representation of socialism in its purest form.
"1984" should be required reading for all 7th graders. If you like this book, read "Animal Farm" by the same author, George Orwell. Another book that should be read and contrasted to "1984" is "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. Also try "We the Living" by Ayn Rand.


Just one more proof that terms such as Socialism, Communism, Capitalism ect. must either be redefined clearly or abolished!

Well just so you know: Orwell (the author of 1984 and Animal farm) was a socialist.
He was a Democratic Socialist and fought aside with the Anarchists and Communists in Spain for a short period.

He was very much opposed to capitalism, but he hated totalitarianism just as much.

1984 is about totalitarianism, not socialism.
I can't believe it's that hard to understand for some folks.

Also mixing in Rand between those other great books...ugh.

[James]

Actually i'd agrue that 1984 was mainly about stalinism. Like Animal farm. But opf course - stalinism IS totalitarianism...

[Michael De Panama]

I remember reading that Orwell was more opposed to totalitarian communism than he was to capitalism, much like myself. He was very pesimistic, but still hoped that someday a classless society could be achieved. 1984 would be "Lenin's" utopia, and my Hell.

1984 is not just a great story. The actual way it was written is absolutely brilliant.

[Michael De Panama]

If you get a chance, Lenin, pick up Animal Farm while you're at it. It's a very flattering portrayal of Josef Stalin.

[Guest]

In "Animal Farm", Orwell showed a procession from democracy to socialism to a totalitarian state. Communism is a totalitarian state when put into practice, so is the NAZI variety of socialism. I believe that Orwell was showing the end point in "1984". In fact, the party which the citizens in 1984 pledged allegiance to called themselves socialist. Orwell was not the first to describe the decay of democracy into such fascist governments. Plato in his "Republic" wrote an excellent description of just how this happens.

[Guest]

Liberico,

I think it is hard for you to accept that the world described in "1984" is a description of a world created by the ideals which you preach.

[James]

I think you will find that Liberico is not an authertarian...

[Guest]

Maybe, I stress maybe, Liberico is not directly an authoritarian, but indirectly he is an. By subcribing to the world view that he holds, he chooses to ignore the very nature of his ideals. That makes him as guilty as the murderous men who are necessary for such an atrocity to be comitted. If you want examples look no further than history.

[James]

I'm afraid i have to say "bull" to that.

Thats typical of western propaganda.

Libertarian and authertarian are completely different.

[Guest]

The ideas and opinions that I espouse can hardly be construed as propaganda. I make it a point to investigate any claim and make up my own mind. Anyone, who knows me, would never state that I was being persuaded by propaganda. They know a weak mind is something that I do not possess. You are the one who is resorting to the same old objections, back up your arguments, instead of producing one liners.

[libereco]

Quote: from Guest on 12:47 pm on June 9, 2002
The ideas and opinions that I espouse can hardly be construed as propaganda. I make it a point to investigate any claim and make up my own mind. Anyone, who knows me, would never state that I was being persuaded by propaganda. They know a weak mind is something that I do not possess. You are the one who is resorting to the same old objections, back up your arguments, instead of producing one liners.

Wow, arn't cha great?

Anyway you still have not realized that Orwell hated Capitalism. Look at how the Farmer is characterized in Animal Farm. He is the Capitalist.
I don't care what you personally think. I know that you have your opinion made up and you won't even attempt to listen to anything challenging your beliefs (well i don't know but suspect).

It's interesting that you know what "world view" I hold, even though I haven't stated any of my personal beliefs at all, I simply told you what Orwell did and was.

anyway I'm opposed to everything authorian, including authorian socialism and any form of capitalism.

But of course you, with your superior intellect, must know better. I think you should stick to reading your Rand and her rape fantasies and flawed philosophy hidden in boring stories.

[James]

Ok,

frstly go onto my site http://communities.msn.co.uk/Informationontheleft
and read up if you please. Then you know more of what i stand for.

Stalinism and anarchism are much much different. I've used these two because they are the extremes...

Anarchism is extreme Libertarian, whilst stalinism is extreme authertarian.

This is another good site to further your reading on MY beliefs...http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html

______________________________

From my site;

"Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy, "the absence of a master, of a sovereign." In other words, anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be that control by the state or a capitalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary.

In the words of anarchist L. Susan Brown:


"While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation." [The Politics of Individualism]



Rather than being purely anti-government or anti-state, anarchism is primarily a movement against hierarchy. Why? Because hierarchy is the organisational structure that embodies authority. Since the state is the "highest" form of hierarchy, anarchists are, by definition, anti-state; but this is not a sufficient definition of anarchism. This means that real anarchists are opposed to all forms of hierarchical organisation, not only the state."

___________________________________________

Where as in authertarianism there is a state. In fact thats pritty much all there is! the state. And stalinism is very nationalistic...another thing that is opposite to anarchism. I'm not going to go on and on about stalinism, i feel that i have given you more than a one line answer.

James

[Guest]

Liberico,

I have read enough of your posts to get a good idea of where you are coming from. Don't assume that this is the only post of yours that I've read. Obviously, Rand was over your head.

[Guest]

who ever said that I was a capitalist. The economic principle which I support is free interprise. Look it up.

[Guest]

Anarchy is also a flawed political system. Albeit, it remains a nobler cause than communism or socialism combined. Apparently, what you crave is freedom. The problem with anarchy is its lack of infrastructure and general unorganized state. However, if free enterprise was allowed to exist and the market went unfettered by government interference, much of the infrastructure would be taken care of.
That being said, government is a necessity. Without government, parties could not be held to their contracts, justice would never be served, money would not hold value, people's freedoms could not be protected, and certain public goods would not otherwise be produced by the free market. These are the reasons why people understand anarchy to be a chaotic, ridiculous idea.
It can and has been argued that men were removed from their natural, Neanderthal like state through cooperative measures to implement a civilized organization. These alliances were formed to secure the safety of all in vicinity, and resulted in the formation of government. Sounds like a good theory, which supports evolution.

[Guest]

Liberico stated:

"I don't care what you personally think. I know that you have your opinion made up and you won't even attempt to listen to anything challenging your beliefs (well i don't know but suspect)."

You challenged me, I gave you the location for the basis of my argument. Why are you waffling now? Why not try to change me. I am strong in my opinions, but I am not closed minded. If you feel that your ideology remains the best prove it.

[Shock To The System]

''The problem with anarchy is its lack of infrastructure and general unorganized state.''

sorry mate, but this is completely wrong...sweeping statement.
Anarchists actually favour organisation over authority. We embrace it. It's how we believe society would function without authority.
If you read into some anarchist theory you'd understand that anarchism as a theory is highly organised.
i'll explain it for you if you like, but I suggest you go to this site:http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/
Read the section on, 'what is anarchism?'.
It's very clear and concise, so you shouldnt have any problems grasping the basics.

''general unorganized state.''

This caught my eye because you used the word 'state'...do you mean state as in the body protecting a government? Or state of mind type state?
If its the latter, its still a false statement, but if its the first, then this is completely rubbish, because anarchists dont believe in a state. (sorry for avid use of the word 'state' in that paragraph!)

Anyway, moving on to something relevant...

''However, if free enterprise was allowed to exist and the market went unfettered by government interference, much of the infrastructure would be taken care of. ''

Um, i dont think so. It would more likely be a hell hole .
Look at capitalism today. Its controlled slightly (very very slighty) , and it fucking sucks to be honest...
now think about how much worse it would be without that slight control over it?
It would be nothing short of complete chaos.
Why? because money creates heirarchies my friend. and what do we get from heirarchies? inequality, and corruption.

''Without government, parties could not be held to their contracts, justice would never be served, money would not hold value, people's freedoms could not be protected, and certain public goods would not otherwise be produced by the free market''

your contradicting yourself.....
the government cannot be trusted to 'look after peoples freedom'...it would end up controlling the money one way or another in the end.
You think they'd just sit back and let people have free enterprise? no offence, but what planet are you on!?

''It can and has been argued that men were removed from their natural, Neanderthal like state through cooperative measures to implement a civilized organization. These alliances were formed to secure the safety of all in vicinity, and resulted in the formation of government. Sounds like a good theory, which supports evolution.''

Well, no.
beacuse lets look at teh native americans.
many live din anarchic societies for centuries, until they were over-run by the 'civilised' colonists who enforced governments uponthem to control and exploit them.....actually thinking abt it, they didnt even do that. that just commited a genocide on them.

i can't help but feel i'm wasting my time arguing why your theory won't work.....
But i believe in anarchism. That's my belief. i doubt very much I could change your views,........but i couldtry if you liked.

[Guest]

I will take a look at your site and you can explain it to me. However, I fear you are the one living in a dream world.
Never did I claim that a completely free enterprise system devoid of government would not be a 'hell hole'. The fact is that telephones, broadcasting, manufacturing, transportation would more than likely exist. The reason that it wouldn't work to the benefit of anyone remains that much of the infrastructure common today would not be accounted for. For example, police, fire, sanitation. Never the less, many negative externalities could occur. For example, pollution and lack of zoning regulations. The negative externalities would far outwiegh the posative.
Many of the above examples can be used as an argument for the existence of government. Large corporations and individuals must have a rule of law under which to live by. Some standard must be applied otherwise polluters and murders alike would have nothing to fear. With out a system of law these degenerates would roam free, until the nearest vigilante cut their heads off. Even then how could there be a way of knowing whether or not the man was actually guilty. The framers knew that a jury trial was the best way to insure that the innocent were not unjustly punished for the crimes of others. They went out of their way to create an objective system by which to try cases. Of course, that device has been perverted to some extent, as murderers and rapist serve their time and run free. In addition, corporations are more often sued in the civil courts rather than the individuals responsible being held accountable in criminal court. Basically, we are to soft on real crime.
Do me a favor in return for me researching your sources of information. Read into Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton's philosophies on governance. Compare and contrast the two. Better yet, start by reading the "Federalist Papers'.

[Guest]

Where to begin. By the way you are not the first person that has tried to convince me that anarchy is the way. You are right I am not convinced. I fact looking at the literature, I retract my earlier statement that anarchy is a nobler cause than communism. It is just plain dumb. The case made by the web site you referred me to is extremely self contradictory, it's funny. I need more time to narrow the scope of my argument, there is enough here to write a twenty page paper on the subject. Unfortunately, I do not have the same time constraints to refut anarchy, as I did with communism. My vacation is ending, I must get back to my legitimate studies.

[James]

Its been updated now.

[Guest]

The web site that you referred to me, cited Peter Kropotkin who said anarchy comes from the Greek words meaning "contrary to authority." That much I will concede. “ The New Webster's Dictionary” defines anarchy as being “the absence of law and order”, and anarchism as “the political theory that all government and law is evil”. The entire first section of the site was devoted to redefining a word that has been well established with an accepted meaning. The creators of the site even go so far as to site a source called “Reinventing Anarchy”, how appropriate. Apparently, these anarchists would have you believe that they are only opposed to authority of the state, religion, or hierarchy, and that they do not find organization abhorrent. This statement is absurd. Denying government is denying order. Without the rule of law there would be no useful organization. If nothing were put into place to protect associations, competing factions would be in a state of perpetual war. In addition to the redefinition of the language, in order to suit modern day anarchist uses, there are many points that the precept of anarchy can be refuted.
The lack of a realistic basis rests with the idea that all men will come together with a common interest. This could not happen without some authority being established. Hierarchy, is a common trait in virtually all social groups. Sociology shows that struggles for dominance occur even in the smallest groups. From the chiefdoms in America, to conquerors such as Alexander the Great, history is direct proof of this assumption. It is quite evident that the assertion made on the web site, which stated “Anarchism, therefore, is a political theory that aims to create a society which is without political, economic or social hierarchies”, goes not only against sociological and historic precedents, but against common sense in general.
In continuation, the web site I was referred to suggests that a socialist or communist form of anarchy is possible, a contradiction that no credible person would post on his or her web site. Let me first use “The New Webster’s Dictionary” to define these terms. Socialism is defined as “a political and economic theory that advocates the collective ownership of the means of production and the control of distribution”. Communism is a theory that advocates “the ownership of property and means of production by the whole of a classless society”. First, lets discuss the implications of the means of production that have to exist in order for the communist and socialist to loot them. The fact that such means exist is a direct testament to the fact that a hierarchy had to devise such methods. With out specialization and the division of labor industry could not exist. To state that anarchy remains in harmony with a productive society is absurd. According to this web site anarchist are opposed to hierarical structure. Next let us review the claim that anarchist are opposed to authority and anarchism is in dire opposition to law and order. Without a centralized force, how does is the collective ownership of something established? Without law and order, how can the public ownership of anything be protected from powerful factions? These are just a few of the contradictions that I noticed about the anarchists’ theory. Am I supposed to believe that all men will forget their differences and agree to cooperate in order to create a utopia?
It has been widely accepted since the 16th century that ‘Utopia’ does not exist. Utopia is defined as “an imaginary political and social system in which relationships between the state and individuals are perfectly adjusted.” In fact, when the framers of our government met for the Constitutional Convention this balance was the subject of many debates. Men like Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison argued these points in great detail. They were sophisticated enough to understand that the governments monopoly on power was a direct threat to the people’s rights. The best solution was a system of checks and balances. A three pronged system that would write, enforce, and interpret the law. Although this was a grand ideal it did not fully address the concerns of the opposition. In order to ratify the Constitution a compromise had to be met so the antifederalists would agree to sign it. The Bill of Rights was the direct result of this agreement. Certain men worried that the powers guaranteed under such amendments could easily be stifled by the power of any of the three branches. The Bill of Rights implies that there is a final check to the system. The people who the government is meant to serve have the right to disband a tyrannical government, for this is the purpose of the second amendment. Now, consider the difference between a revolution for the purposes or restoring freedom, and a revolution rooted in the disruption of law and order for the purposes of destroying men’s inherent nature. Which idea remains most credible, the fairy tale of a utopian society espoused by lunatics, or a system of law and order contemplated by the greatest political philosophers?

[James]

I think i understand the point you are trying to argue, but you've based that on my site that you had a look at. I think you will find that the section on my site that you read is an "introduction" (ie what it is).

No one would read anything that was much longer, and it gets more complecated. I suggest you take a look at the anarchist FAQ, theres lots for you to read, and hopefully answer your queries.

Anarchist FAQ;

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/

James

[Fabi]

guest,

i hope i didnt already tell you this somewhere else, but the same arguments WERE used against democracy....

and there are ways to sort things out in an anarchistic society... you should go to the 'theory' forum and read the two threads on anarchy there. it might clear things up a bit.
i suggest you go to http://flag.blackened.net/wwwthreads/ubbth...Cat=&PHPSESSID= (http://flag.blackened.net/wwwthreads/ubbthreads.php?Cat=&PHPSESSID=) .... there are probably people who can answer your questions in a more thorough way than some of us.

also anarchism IS socialism... i hope it is only some misunderstanding... it IS a form of socialism...
also i think you should refer to the people who wrote down anarchist theories when trying to define anarchy, not some dictionary... dicitionaries usually just give a very strange picture... you'd notice that anarchists (bakunin, chomsky, etc.) are socialists.

you dont sound tooooo bad.. ;) go and read some threads. i agree that there might be some contradictions on the surface, but that's why e.g. the anarchist faq is so long... (2000 pages or so...)
it talks about why it is NOT some dream-world...

dont have time to write more... happy researching

[Guest]

I read through your entire website. The problem is that I di not have enough time to refute every single contradiction that I saw. I noticed you used some Henry Thorough, an interesting man.