Anarchy comes from the Greek "an" meaning 'no' and "archy" meaning 'rulers.'
Nothing about chaos there.
Try again.
Results 1 to 20 of 45
Capitalism is darwinian: kill or be killed. It does not serve the majority. Capitalisms power has grown beyond the control of government itself. The motivating factor of capitalism is darwinian: survival of the fittest beyond law and government (or, anarchy which has no government). Anarchy does not work for the people either, it is just survival of the fittest chaos.
Communism, on the other hand, is democratic. It is an economic system created by "the people" for "the people" (the majority). As such it would need a matching democratic system of management. One which exists by the people and for the people.
The difference between the civilized world and the jungle is that the civilized world is designed for the common good (everybody survives), in the jungle everything is pursued for the individuals good (only the strongest survive).
Both anarchy and capitalism are uncivilized (they are for the individuals pursuit of happiness).
But both communism and democracy are civilized (they are for the common pursuit of happiness).
Anarchy comes from the Greek "an" meaning 'no' and "archy" meaning 'rulers.'
Nothing about chaos there.
Try again.
Hear the words I sing,
War's a horrid thing,
So I sing, sing, sing,
Ding-a-ling-a-ling.
--Baldrick, Blackadder Goes Forth
Barricade Books
The last time I was sentenced to death, I ordered four hyper-vodkas for my breakfast. All a bit of a blur after that... I woke up in bed with both of my executioners. Lovely couple, they stayed in touch! Can't say that about most executioners. - Captain Jack Harkness
Space Ice Cream, you do realise a communisty society is described as a classless, stateless society, right? I don't think you have a good understanding of anarchism, or even communism for that matter.
BUY THE TICKET, TAKE THE RIDE
Capitalism could only really be achieved in a state similar to (but different from) anarchy. There would be at most a fragmented government or state force enforcing free trade rules and private property "rights". For a better idea of what actual anarchy is like tried the stickied threads.
Try Reading:
Capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Anarchy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
<span style=\'color:red\'>"This way of "life" is a way of death. To work for the industries of death is to murder. To know the torments America inflicts on the Third World, but not to sympathize and identify, is to deny our right to love - and not to love is to die. We refuse. In death-directed America there is only one way to a life of love and freedom; to attack and destroy the forces of death and exploitation and to build a just society - revolution. "</span>
<span style=\'colorurple\'>
“When the power of love overcomes the love of power … The world will know peace” Jimi Hendrix</span>
<Anarchy comes from the Greek "an" meaning 'no' and "archy" meaning 'rulers.'>
That is correct. Where did you get that from? The dictionary? The dictionary also lists Anarchy as:
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
<Nothing about chaos there.>
<Try again. >
I don't have to "try". My argument has been proven throughout history. It's your argument that has no examples from history to support it. People on your side of the argument claim that somehow democracy will fall together at random without any government with a bunch of people sitting around like native american chiefs or something, but it is completely not realistic. Democratic rule is rule for the people and it needs to be established and defended. It does not just form naturally. Anarchy has no rule so it can not be one which supports society, it is one which supports no system at all. It is nothing so therefore it gives society nothing. It is the absence of society. The absence of society is primitive: not made for "the people": made for the animal kingdom. If that is the kind of system you think will support "the people" you are dead wrong.
erm no. anarchism is a way of obtaining communism, and yes in history there have been instances where it has worked, spain, ukraine, etc. its not nothing, and no he didnt get the greek origin from a dictionary. is the abolishment of hierarchy not the abolishment of society.
<Space Ice Cream, you do realise a communisty society is described as a classless, stateless society, right?>
Dictionary defintion of communism is:
"A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat. "
it clearly says as a part of the definition that communism is "a system of government in which THE STATE plans and controls the economy". Even Karl Marx mentions THE STATE controlling many aspects of his ideas. How can this be possible if, by your definition, there can be no state.
<I don't think you have a good understanding of anarchism,>
You are wrong. I have a dictionary. The definition of anarchy is:
"Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose."
So, please tell me where I am mistaken.
<or even communism for that matter. >
I have a crystal clear understanding of communism, I just read the communist manifesto again last week. I don't remember reading anything about promoting anarchy, but even if there are passages which promote anarchy, it still does not prove that communism is always hand in hand with anarchy.
<Try Reading:
Capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Anarchy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy>
I know what they are. Now what is your argument.
so what do you want to believe, where the word originated from and its meaning. or a modern dictionary?
<erm no. anarchism is a way of obtaining communism,>
erm, no. Anarchy is nothing at all, how can it obtain communism? Anarchy is lack of government. "What" would obtain communism if nothing in particular even exists?
<and yes in history there have been instances where it has worked.
spain, ukraine, etc.>
Those were just tiny instances that didn't even last five years. That is not really an example of something that has been established. Those are only examples of temporary solutions to problems. There are no examples of any established anarchist states that have flourished.
< its not nothing, and no he didnt get the greek origin from a dictionary.>
Well, his exact translation was in the dictionary I looked up (word for word), where I got my full definition. The same definition he claimed that I was completely ignorant of.
<is the abolishment of hierarchy not the abolishment of society.>
The abolishment of state is the abolishment of society as a whole. A government administers public policy.
What you don't seem to understand is that you can abolish both classes and simultaniously have a democracy. But you can never abolish democracy and somehow expect to have a system of equal classes.
Without any public policy, all public anything ceases to exist...And everything becomes private again (unless taken by force). When people stand up and decide to govern themselves, that is democracy not anarchy. When people take the law into thier own hands and go the route of vigilance then that is nothing public, that is not for the people.
there is democracy in anarchism, its just not representative, its direct. wow, i guess you dont get it, anarchism isnt a way to live, its a way of obtaining communism.
I know I said "anarchist states" above, but I meant "anarchist countries" typo.
put down the dictionary and read some kropotkin.
"The state is the guardian and defender of the priviledges that the Church makes divine. We wish to end the rule of the capital, of the state and of the Church by constructing on their ruins Anarchy, the free federation of free associations of workers." - Rafael Farga Pellicer
there is no such thing as anarchist country. and besides it would be a communist society not anarchist.
<there is democracy in anarchism, its just not representative, its direct.>
Ok, before we argue any further I need to know *exactly* how you are defining anarchy. I am defining it as absence of political authority. Meaning there is nobody telling anybody what to do. Everybody is free to do whatever they want.
Your definition seems to be different because in your definition people seem to organize and decide on things which need to be done and then impliment them, which means the majority is in control and playing the part of the authority figure.
When the majority play the role of the authority figure that is democracy, not anarchy (at least as far as I have been aware of).
anarchy = no authority figure
democracy = majority rules
<wow, i guess you dont get it, anarchism isnt a way to live, its a way of obtaining communism. >
I really don't think I am getting it. I don't understand whether you are promoting an anarchist society or a democracy.
anarchism is a way of obtaining communism, communism is direct democracy, people rule. so yes communism doesnt have authority, there are no "leaders" everyone has a say.
<there is no such thing as anarchist country. and besides it would be a communist society not anarchist. >
Fine "anarchist LANDMASS" is that better? And can I ask you what you mean by a "communist society not anarchist" weren't you the one who was trying to argue that communism and anarchy need to be hand in hand?
<anarchism is a way of obtaining communism, communism is direct democracy,>
Ok, we are really getting somewhere now. I think maybe you are starting to understand where I am coming from now. Communism must go hand in hand with democracy. (it doesn't have to take the form of modern democracies, it does however have to take the form of people rule united, not people rule individually).
<people rule. so yes communism doesnt have authority, there are no "leaders" everyone has a say.>
I realize the problem we are having here. Communism must have an authority figure: the people collectively are the authority figure in itself. I know it must kill you to have to admit it, but communism is not free of an authority figure. Communism is designed for "the people" the same way the idea of democracy is designed for the people, and as such it is the perfect model to work with communism.
Only true anarchy is free of any and all authority figures. Freedom from all authoirty figures (even the collective authority) is individual survival of the fittest darwinian rule. Since capitalists collectively are now becoming more powerful then the governments they live in, they no longer really need to obey the laws of any governments and as such operate on a very similar level to anarchy.
Yes, I'm going to trust capitalist book makers over Communists... that makes sense... no wait.
And by the way, this Marx "statehood" is in the first "phase" of communism. I don't care how many times you've read the manifesto. You don't have it right.
A million dictionaries may have that same definition. But it is still the wrong definition.
Socialism does indeed, have a state. And socialism, in Marxist theory, is the "first phase" of communism. When the state is ended because it is "not needed".
When most of the functions of the state are reduced to this accounting and control by the workers themselves, then it ceases to be a "political state," and their "public functions will lose political character and be transformed into simple aministrative functions. - Chapt. IV Engels' Polemic Against the Anarchists
See? The state loses its political function it is no longer a state. Anarchism is not a "lawless" or "rules of the jungle" environment. It is abolishing the state so that the people, and not bureaucrats, can rule.
It's very hard to thing of this as capitalism has fed us lies about communism and anarchism over-and-over-and-over.
But you mustn't block yourself in a corner and just defend yourself to the death. You must read what we post. I know where your coming from, but I mean to put it bluntly: I realized I was COMPLETELY wrong.
There is no compromise. You are wrong. At least try to rectify that by learning.
He who was previously the money-owner now strides out in front as a capitalist; the possessor of labour-power follows as his worker. The one smirks self-importantly and is intent on business; the other is timid and holds back, like someone who has brought his own hide to market and now has nothing else to expect but - a good tanning. - Karl Marx, Capital Volume I
