385 replies to this topic

[Blodo]

You are a radical. You are a radical of conservationism. You would rather do nothing than stand up and say what you think. That's what I am fighting, I am fighting the people who do nothing. They are the plague of this world, because they are walking willingly like lambs to the slaughter. The people in power are not too different, they want to do nothing. The whole system is about doing nothing. That's the biggest problem this world has suffered since the founding of the first religion.

All I can understand for now is that you are too self concerned to take any action. If I am wrong, explain this to me, cause I cannot understand how can anyone be compelled to do nothing.

[Allied General]

You are a radical. You are a radical of conservationism. You would rather do nothing than stand up and say what you think. That's what I am fighting, I am fighting the people who do nothing. They are the plague of this world, because they are walking willingly like lambs to the slaughter. The people in power are not too different, they want to do nothing. The whole system is about doing nothing. That's the biggest problem this world has suffered since the founding of the first religion.

All I can understand for now is that you are too self concerned to take any action. If I am wrong, explain this to me, cause I cannot understand how can anyone be compelled to do nothing.

So basically your saying people must be forced to have a political stance otherwise they are the plague of the world?

Your saying people that just want a happy life with some kids, a wife or some success should be killed or whatever?

Your gripped with paranoia that the big companies are closing in and its hilarious to see you banter with such seriousness over such a issue where you have little or no control.

If you want to make a difference, take to the streets like those crazy preachers instead of claiming to be some social enlighted self made "god" because you think capitalism = all bad nothing good on a online forum powered by capitalist means.

Also yet again its your perception that society is doing "nothing" if a person takes action he is blamed e.g. bush iraq war, if he doesn't take action he is blamed e.g. pacifists.

Its a lose lose situation.

Edited by Allied General, 01 July 2006 - 09:14 PM.

[Comrade Kal]

S oyou aren't arguing with fact?

Here, please explain the following:

1. Why a society with no government wil lwork.

2. How the economy will stay afloat.

3. How this anarchist... "nation"... wil lbe able to defend themselkves.

4. How we weil lavoid chaos.

5. How any type of order wil lstay.

6. How tribes won't just spring up, going through the cycle again.

Anarchism is an incredibly complicated political system, it's not just as simple as getting rid of governments and police and saying "Well...here we are then!"

Nonetheless, I shall do my best to answer your arguments.

1. How can you say a society with a government works? Anarchists are opposed to all forms of hierarchy, and governments are a form of hierarchy. Centralised governments always end up oppressing people, committing atrocities, and doig nothing about things such as global poverty.

2. There's no economy. The entire concept of money is destroyed. The economy is based on collectivism.

3. A slight weakness. Some anarcho-syndicalist groups were in favour of allowing groups such as trade unions to hold arms and form militias in certain circumstances, as was used during the Spanish Civil War.

4. It doesn't happen. Not all laws disappear, they are instead replaced with 'anarchist law'. Look it up. Societies are capable of policing themselves, they always have been, even with FAR less sophisticated societies.

5. That's the same question as 4.

6. 'Tribes' are already there, with decentralised communities. Asking if they will go to war is a ridiculous statement - it woudl never happen. Has switzerland ever decided to declare war on anyone? Have the counties in England suddenly spontaneously decided to start conquering one another? It's absurd.

[Allied General]

6. Actually last point isn't absurd.

Civil wars prove that point because there is no overwhelming power.

Also what about genghis khan and atila the hun?

One leader unites all the "tribes" and proceeds to try and conquer the world.

Hitler found all his tribes of "ayrans" leading to his war on the world.

The main reason why people do not commit crime is that there is a deterrent.

This prevents most members of society from butchering each other.

Collectivism basically society works for a group instead of a individual.

You do realise you are putting incredible trust in people who by nature lie (this is a natural instinct as proven by scientists) and have the capacity to achieve everything for egotistical purposes.

I have no problems with a people driven society except that one part of the equation is completely ill suited for it: people at least for any significant period of time.

Also anarchist law defeats your entire ideals ...

The most fundamental maxim of anarchism is that no individual has the right to coerce another individual, and that everyone has the right to defend his or her self against coercion.

You can't force anyone to join and be shapeless clone of a mass of people going towards a so called "higher and better" purpose.

So in the end you rely on humans to act against there own selfish "survival of the fittest" nature which is natural to join your society.

Basically what prevents anyone in this society from exploting another individual or the group?

Also

Collectivism is a term describing any outlook that emphasizes human interdependence on the community, and the prioritization of group goals over individual goals

This prevents individualism and freedom of speech because the group mentality is considered superior.

Also the ideals have been abused as seen in history by thousands of dicators

Pal Pot and Stalin to name but a few.

In much the same way the teaching in the bible and koran with terrorism and crusades.

Edited by Allied General, 01 July 2006 - 09:54 PM.

[Blodo]

So basically your saying people must be forced to have a political stance otherwise they are the plague of the world?

Obviously you misinterpreted the whole point. Did I say political stance? I said either stop whining about how bad the world is or do something about it. I said people who are advocating doing nothing are the evil of this world.

You always get driven to a point where you will make a choice. And you might even be completely unconscious of the fact, but as long as you live on this world you will always be part of it. Time to accept it and shape it.

As I said, it's no longer a matter of the political "left and right". It's a matter of society and accepting failure. Failure should never be accepted. It should be revised and the failed deed tried again, until you win.


Nice work hijacking Kal's statement btw. Collectivism isn't that. Collectivism is people working towards a goal that will benefit them, not the individual. Of course that is a long way for society to go, but once again you fall into the illusion that it is impossible, when it isn't. Nothing is impossible AG.

Edited by Blodo, 01 July 2006 - 09:56 PM.

[Allied General]

So basically your saying people must be forced to have a political stance otherwise they are the plague of the world?

Obviously you misinterpreted the whole point. Did I say political stance? I said either stop whining about how bad the world is or do something about it. I said people who are advocating doing nothing are the evil of this world.

Uh this is what Kal is doing he is whining about how bad the world is

I don't think the world is actually that terrible because the stuff he talks about has not affected me in a direct physical way.

Edited by Allied General, 01 July 2006 - 09:56 PM.

[Blodo]

At least he tries to say he will do something about it.

[Allied General]

At least he tries to say he will do something about it.

words are meaningless, actions are priceless.

a man can say he will help a lady across the world but if he doesn't do some action e.g. help her across the world the purpose is useless.

[AOWR-Theoo Stratiotes]

I think the ideals of communism can be good, but that it is virtually (but not totally) impossible to put them into effect. Why? Ultamitely in the process of transfering power to the people it's all in one place, in one person. Hence we had Lenin, Stalin, etc, etc...

If we could transfer the power through someone who would actually continue the correct process we might have had some good governments. But it didn't work that way and probably never will.

But I do think we have a misunderstanding of the Cold War. ALL asian countries we invaded had had their proper government crushed and their people persecuted by the soviets. There is only one exception, and that one ended up a dictatorship. And all european countries that were invaded had been swept through by the Soviets after WWII; AFTER they said they would not aggress against any country in Europe.

Basicly; Communism's ideas and ideals are good (most of them, at least), but can't be put into practice very easily (or at all, in my opinion).

[Cossack]

Funny, I would not have thought you to be a communist sympathizer.

I am not a complete communist, but a socialist. I do believe a central government has a purpose, and that purpose is to run all corperations so that they do not exploit the lower and middle class's. I don't think everything should be collective, as that would be incredibly boring, and nobody would see the point in working hard if they are not doing it for slight personal gains (I don't think currency should be abolished, and I do think, for example, that doctors should be paid more than taxi drivers)

I also believe laws must be enforced by the state for order to keep order. I don't think everyone should be payed equally, and I think there should be some personal ownership, however, I think that the state should run all corperations in order to prevent the elite from hording all the money.

In a way, I think my beliefs are somewhat similar to that of a post-stalin soviet system, and I think the soviet system could have worked without the massive corruption that went on inside the government, and because of wealthy government officials that, (like most capitalists), would sacrifice the good of their country fro personal gains.

[Pyth]

S oyou aren't arguing with fact?

Here, please explain the following:

1. Why a society with no government wil lwork.

2. How the economy will stay afloat.

3. How this anarchist... "nation"... wil lbe able to defend themselkves.

4. How we weil lavoid chaos.

5. How any type of order wil lstay.

6. How tribes won't just spring up, going through the cycle again.

Anarchism is an incredibly complicated political system, it's not just as simple as getting rid of governments and police and saying "Well...here we are then!"

Nonetheless, I shall do my best to answer your arguments.

1. How can you say a society with a government works? Anarchists are opposed to all forms of hierarchy, and governments are a form of hierarchy. Centralised governments always end up oppressing people, committing atrocities, and doig nothing about things such as global poverty.

2. There's no economy. The entire concept of money is destroyed. The economy is based on collectivism.

3. A slight weakness. Some anarcho-syndicalist groups were in favour of allowing groups such as trade unions to hold arms and form militias in certain circumstances, as was used during the Spanish Civil War.

4. It doesn't happen. Not all laws disappear, they are instead replaced with 'anarchist law'. Look it up. Societies are capable of policing themselves, they always have been, even with FAR less sophisticated societies.

5. That's the same question as 4.

6. 'Tribes' are already there, with decentralised communities. Asking if they will go to war is a ridiculous statement - it woudl never happen. Has switzerland ever decided to declare war on anyone? Have the counties in England suddenly spontaneously decided to start conquering one another? It's absurd.

Complicated point: Yes.

1. Well, I HIGHLY doubt Canada is opressive. I don't hear of any atrocities. Or see them. However, I do believe we need to do more, yes. But how wil lyour anarchy do this?

2. Without money, people will pay each other using barter. Meaning the rich people wil lhave cows, not money. Then someone thiniks "we should standardize this"... And viola. Money!

3. Well, this may work, but with no unified command, seems risky.

4. No. Al lsocieties not held together by A. Basioc survival will B. Family ties C. Wars will commit crimes. And who's there to stop them? There will merely be violence.

5. Social order. Which means hierarchy... Which evolves to government.

6. We've got our little groups. Lets say we have two farming communities, Belka and Aesania. (Yes, I copied CCW. ) Let's say Aesania's soil is crap. They want better soil. Belka doesn't want to give land away. So they fight.

[AOWR-Theoo Stratiotes]

Yes: I am a sympathizer not a supporter. The democratic-republic government is my prefered form of government.

[Pyth]

SOunds sensible.

[Comrade Kal]

S oyou aren't arguing with fact?

Here, please explain the following:

1. Why a society with no government wil lwork.

2. How the economy will stay afloat.

3. How this anarchist... "nation"... wil lbe able to defend themselkves.

4. How we weil lavoid chaos.

5. How any type of order wil lstay.

6. How tribes won't just spring up, going through the cycle again.

Anarchism is an incredibly complicated political system, it's not just as simple as getting rid of governments and police and saying "Well...here we are then!"

Nonetheless, I shall do my best to answer your arguments.

1. How can you say a society with a government works? Anarchists are opposed to all forms of hierarchy, and governments are a form of hierarchy. Centralised governments always end up oppressing people, committing atrocities, and doig nothing about things such as global poverty.

2. There's no economy. The entire concept of money is destroyed. The economy is based on collectivism.

3. A slight weakness. Some anarcho-syndicalist groups were in favour of allowing groups such as trade unions to hold arms and form militias in certain circumstances, as was used during the Spanish Civil War.

4. It doesn't happen. Not all laws disappear, they are instead replaced with 'anarchist law'. Look it up. Societies are capable of policing themselves, they always have been, even with FAR less sophisticated societies.

5. That's the same question as 4.

6. 'Tribes' are already there, with decentralised communities. Asking if they will go to war is a ridiculous statement - it woudl never happen. Has switzerland ever decided to declare war on anyone? Have the counties in England suddenly spontaneously decided to start conquering one another? It's absurd.

Complicated point: Yes.

1. Well, I HIGHLY doubt Canada is opressive. I don't hear of any atrocities. Or see them. However, I do believe we need to do more, yes. But how wil lyour anarchy do this?

2. Without money, people will pay each other using barter. Meaning the rich people wil lhave cows, not money. Then someone thiniks "we should standardize this"... And viola. Money!

3. Well, this may work, but with no unified command, seems risky.

4. No. Al lsocieties not held together by A. Basioc survival will B. Family ties C. Wars will commit crimes. And who's there to stop them? There will merely be violence.

5. Social order. Which means hierarchy... Which evolves to government.

6. We've got our little groups. Lets say we have two farming communities, Belka and Aesania. (Yes, I copied CCW. ) Let's say Aesania's soil is crap. They want better soil. Belka doesn't want to give land away. So they fight.

1. You might not be particularly oppressive, but you're going that way, as are all other countries... you also do nothing, which as we have stated is wrong/

2. WHat would be the point? Everybody owns everything. There's no concept of property.

3. It's worked before.

4. WHAT? Speak English.

5. Order and hierarchy are seperate concepts....

6. As i've said, if that were true, switzerland would have invaded other countries... the EU would be in perpetual war.

[Pyth]

S oyou aren't arguing with fact?

Here, please explain the following:

1. Why a society with no government wil lwork.

2. How the economy will stay afloat.

3. How this anarchist... "nation"... wil lbe able to defend themselkves.

4. How we weil lavoid chaos.

5. How any type of order wil lstay.

6. How tribes won't just spring up, going through the cycle again.

Anarchism is an incredibly complicated political system, it's not just as simple as getting rid of governments and police and saying "Well...here we are then!"

Nonetheless, I shall do my best to answer your arguments.

1. How can you say a society with a government works? Anarchists are opposed to all forms of hierarchy, and governments are a form of hierarchy. Centralised governments always end up oppressing people, committing atrocities, and doig nothing about things such as global poverty.

2. There's no economy. The entire concept of money is destroyed. The economy is based on collectivism.

3. A slight weakness. Some anarcho-syndicalist groups were in favour of allowing groups such as trade unions to hold arms and form militias in certain circumstances, as was used during the Spanish Civil War.

4. It doesn't happen. Not all laws disappear, they are instead replaced with 'anarchist law'. Look it up. Societies are capable of policing themselves, they always have been, even with FAR less sophisticated societies.

5. That's the same question as 4.

6. 'Tribes' are already there, with decentralised communities. Asking if they will go to war is a ridiculous statement - it woudl never happen. Has switzerland ever decided to declare war on anyone? Have the counties in England suddenly spontaneously decided to start conquering one another? It's absurd.

Complicated point: Yes.

1. Well, I HIGHLY doubt Canada is opressive. I don't hear of any atrocities. Or see them. However, I do believe we need to do more, yes. But how wil lyour anarchy do this?

2. Without money, people will pay each other using barter. Meaning the rich people wil lhave cows, not money. Then someone thiniks "we should standardize this"... And viola. Money!

3. Well, this may work, but with no unified command, seems risky.

4. No. Al lsocieties not held together by A. Basioc survival will B. Family ties C. Wars will commit crimes. And who's there to stop them? There will merely be violence.

5. Social order. Which means hierarchy... Which evolves to government.

6. We've got our little groups. Lets say we have two farming communities, Belka and Aesania. (Yes, I copied CCW. ) Let's say Aesania's soil is crap. They want better soil. Belka doesn't want to give land away. So they fight.

1. You might not be particularly oppressive, but you're going that way, as are all other countries... you also do nothing, which as we have stated is wrong/

2. WHat would be the point? Everybody owns everything. There's no concept of property.

3. It's worked before.

4. WHAT? Speak English.

5. Order and hierarchy are seperate concepts....

6. As i've said, if that were true, switzerland would have invaded other countries... the EU would be in perpetual war.

1. YOu never answered my point on how anarchy wil lhelp other areas of the planet.

2. People are greedy. They MAKE the concept of property.

3. Again, it's risky. Without one society, all thy'll get is AKs.

4. Basically, if they aren't held together as a family, by war, or by basic "We need food" survival needs, they wil lcommit crimes.

5. So? They fit right together. For order you need leaders. That=Hierarchy.

6. No, as Switzerland and France and all can get what they want through trade, and have a much better base than a little commune. (And befoe you say the communes could trade, realise, people re greedy and that they wouldn't have near as much rescources as a natio nanyway.)

[Comrade Kal]

You're repeating yourself. I'm not sitting here and explaining a complex political system for you, look it up instead of asking stupid questions.

[Pyth]

So you don't want to justify your beliefs?

[Comrade Kal]

I have. You're just being idiotic. Here's something: if it's been proven to work before, THERE IS NO ARGUMENT AGAINST IT. So stop trying. "They'll fight each other!" no they won't, does the EU have a war every week?

If you really want to know about it, read up on it. Otherwise, just sit there with your boring moderate politics. But consider this: What have moderate politics EVER achieved?

Answer: NOTHING OF ANY IMPORTANCE.

[Pyth]

Yes, it SO works due to some little communities in Spain. Put the US or something under it then...

As for Moderate politics,well,I believe in a little more Leftist system than Canada has... And Canada is pretty moderate, even though it's capitaist-leaning.

For the EU war... No. They do not have wars every week. But little communes will.

[Comrade Kal]

You decentralise into little communes... why would they declare war on each other? Why are they more likely to declare war on each other than countries?

Anyway, as I said, moderate politics have never achieved anything at all.