[crackedthesky]

Originally Posted by kidinthebushes

Get a job.

Ew don't touch me.

[kidinthebushes]

Originally Posted by crackedthesky

Ew don't touch me.

I wouldn't dare walking into your parent's basement.

[crackedthesky]

Originally Posted by kidinthebushes

I wouldn't dare walking into your parent's basement.

I don't live in my parents' basement, I just play Skyrim there. I get my own bedroom, and it's all because I know proper English and I put it to good use instead of directing fathomless stupidity at strangers on the Internet.

[Lysrothtuck]

Originally Posted by Nevuk

Yay goldman, nay kropotkin. But even us anarchists agree to disagree to agree to agree to disagree. It gets a little convoluted.

I think Mutual Aid is a fantastic read, but as you said, to each their own.

As long as we can both say no to Rothbard, right?

[Nevuk]

Originally Posted by Lysrothtuck

I think Mutual Aid is a fantastic read, but as you said, to each their own.

As long as we can both say no to Rothbard, right?

Yep. No to Rothbard. Down with the anarcho-capitalists! (seriously though that's just such a misleading term, anarcho-capitalism bears almost no resemblance to any other form of anarchy. It's enough so that I'm pretty sure everyone but anarcho-capitalists and libertarians thinks it's a misuse of the term)

I do actually like mutual aid, I just think most 19th century anarchist thought is too rooted in humanism.

[caveBEAR]

Originally Posted by Nevuk

Yep. No to Rothbard. Down with the anarcho-capitalists! (seriously though that's just such a misleading term, anarcho-capitalism bears almost no resemblance to any other form of anarchy. It's enough so that I'm pretty sure everyone but anarcho-capitalists and libertarians thinks it's a misuse of the term)

I do actually like mutual aid, I just think most 19th century anarchist thought is too rooted in humanism.

Feel free to not do this, but all I've ever really hear about when it comes to anarchism is shit you'd hear from the dumb 17 year old 'anarchists' who come to this board. Is there any chance you (or
any of the other anarchists who posted in here, sorry, I'm on my phone, can't multiquote) kind of give a quick 'Wikipedia' explanation of anarchism and how it would work in society?

[Nevuk]

Originally Posted by caveBEAR

Feel free to not do this, but all I've ever really hear about when it comes to anarchism is shit you'd hear from the dumb 17 year old 'anarchists' who come to this board. Is there any chance you (or
any of the other anarchists who posted in here, sorry, I'm on my phone, can't multiquote) kind of give a quick 'Wikipedia' explanation of anarchism and how it would work in society?

Two broad kinds of anarchism, societal and individual. Social anarchists are anti-hierarchy while individual anarchists are for maximum personal liberty. (Social anarchists believe in positive and negative liberties - ie it is a freedom to be ABLE to do something while individualist anarchists are only concerned with the restraints against liberty placed).

Individualist anarchists tend to be the 17 year old type, it's not practiced outside of the US (It's essentially an American innovation, although Max Stirner created it). It led to libertarianism eventually.

Social Anarchism is better viewed as an extreme form of socialism - the end goal of all forms of anarchy are a stateless society (which is the same goal as communist/marxists), but the difference between an anarchist and a communist is that an anarchist doesn't think that the state can be used to create a stateless society while a communist views it as a necessary evil (communists could better correct me on the exact phrase) transitory period. (Anarchists think that the means of obtaining the ends politically influence what the end actually is to an extreme degree).

During the Spanish Civil War in a region of Spain called Catalonia anarchists + leftist socialists had control for a lengthy period. (About 3 years).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia

Society still functioned, this is the case example of anarchy in action. Had they successfully won their civil war the British had Gunships offshore to destroy the region and/or render it powerless. An anarchist state is a contradiction - those could never exist.


I'm a societal anarchist in the broad sense but in the narrow sense modern political thought has rendered certain claims of the societal anarchists no longer feasible, which is why I'm a post-structural anarchist (it's also called post-anarchism. It can't be explained easily). There are as many types of social anarchists as there are schools of political thought in every other discipline combined - that's why it's a little hard to define. Outside influence is the major difficulty with establishing anarchist areas - russian and british influence were what caused Catalonia to fall, and post-anarchism can be briefly said to be the practice of thought experiments to get around this issue and the issue of revolutions defining themselves by what they are rebelling against

[Lysrothtuck]

One way of separating anarchism from other political philosophies (in my humble opinion) is that whereas conservatism or liberalism box people into certain categories, anarchism allows us to create our own social fabric without the pre-conditions of "joining" an ideology. It is a starting place, nothing more.

[FuzzBecause]

Liberal, but...

[Machu505]

I identify as a socialist, but I can definitely hold hands with communists, anarchists, and other dirty leftists.

[colorfulfiasco]

I'm a Libertarian, so i just narrowed down things I am "not" to vote.

[Esrb99]

Catholic/Orthodox Monarchist.

[majinsharingan]

Registered no affiliation although I lean towards the left. I really just do not like politics but I cannot look away.

[TheAirGuitarist]

Originally Posted by Nevuk

Two broad kinds of anarchism, societal and individual. Social anarchists are anti-hierarchy while individual anarchists are for maximum personal liberty. (Social anarchists believe in positive and negative liberties - ie it is a freedom to be ABLE to do something while individualist anarchists are only concerned with the restraints against liberty placed).

I can essentially agree with this, though I'd add that positive freedoms that don't first respect negative ones are not real freedoms. Example, forcibly taking from one person to give to another if consider "freedom" makes "freedom" a zero-sum game and thus not real freedom.

Originally Posted by Nevuk

Individualist anarchists tend to be the 17 year old type, it's not practiced outside of the US (It's essentially an American innovation, although Max Stirner created it). It led to libertarianism eventually.

Wow OK that's wrong on a few levels. First, libertarianism predates anarcho-capitalism so your causation chain is backwards. Second, yes it is practiced outside the US (visit a few anarcho-capitalist sites and you'll rapidly find ancaps around the world, a more prominent example being Stefan Molyneaux who is a man from England currently living in Canada and is a significant ancap advocate). Third the "17 year old type" is meaningless ad hominem that one trip to Mises.org would immediately disprove.

Social Anarchism is better viewed as an extreme form of socialism - the end goal of all forms of anarchy are a stateless society (which is the same goal as communist/marxists), but the difference between an anarchist and a communist is that an anarchist doesn't think that the state can be used to create a stateless society while a communist views it as a necessary evil (communists could better correct me on the exact phrase) transitory period. (Anarchists think that the means of obtaining the ends politically influence what the end actually is to an extreme degree).

So yea I'm the Rothbard fan here. But here's the thing, I have nothing against anarcho-socialists or anarcho-syndicalists as long as we can all come to a conclusion on what the state is. The state is the group which claims a monopoly on the initiation of violence within a given geographic region. As long as we can all agree to scrap that I think we're all in good shape. The anarcho-socialists and syndicalists will be able to try out their society and the ancaps can try there's with no one forced into either system. I simply prefer the ancap society and believe it would be the more likely one to sustain itself, but I'm against using violence to do so. Once we agree to put the guns down, all disagreements bring up no problems as everyone can go to the type of society they prefer.

[Nevuk]

Originally Posted by TheAirGuitarist

I can essentially agree with this, though I'd add that positive freedoms that don't first respect negative ones are not real freedoms. Example, forcibly taking from one person to give to another if consider "freedom" makes "freedom" a zero-sum game and thus not real freedom.



Wow OK that's wrong on a few levels. First, libertarianism predates anarcho-capitalism so your causation chain is backwards. Second, yes it is practiced outside the US (visit a few anarcho-capitalist sites and you'll rapidly find ancaps around the world, a more prominent example being Stefan Molyneaux who is a man from England currently living in Canada and is a significant ancap advocate). Third the "17 year old type" is meaningless ad hominem that one trip to Mises.org would immediately disprove.

Social Anarchism is better viewed as an extreme form of socialism - the end goal of all forms of anarchy are a stateless society (which is the same goal as communist/marxists), but the difference between an anarchist and a communist is that an anarchist doesn't think that the state can be used to create a stateless society while a communist views it as a necessary evil (communists could better correct me on the exact phrase) transitory period. (Anarchists think that the means of obtaining the ends politically influence what the end actually is to an extreme degree).

So yea I'm the Rothbard fan here. But here's the thing, I have nothing against anarcho-socialists or anarcho-syndicalists as long as we can all come to a conclusion on what the state is. The state is the group which claims a monopoly on the initiation of violence within a given geographic region. As long as we can all agree to scrap that I think we're all in good shape. The anarcho-socialists and syndicalists will be able to try out their society and the ancaps can try there's with no one forced into either system. I simply prefer the ancap society and believe it would be the more likely one to sustain itself, but I'm against using violence to do so. Once we agree to put the guns down, all disagreements bring up no problems as everyone can go to the type of society they prefer.

Most individualist anarchists I've met in person rapidly gave up their beliefs, but I mainly stated it that way because I was addressing a person who had met only young anarchists who weren't very coherent. The more key part of my statement is that individualist anarchism is a US tradition (there are older individualist anarchists in the US than 17, of course, or it wouldn't actually have a philosophy or tradition.)

Even a lot of individualist anarchists hate Rothbard though. Anarcho-Capitalism is not popular in anarchist circles. But the point of your post seems to be that propaganda of the deed is something we shouldn't utilize? Its ineffectivity in the past is why I agree with you on that. Or are you also a pacifist in general?