How to start an Anarchist society

Yes, it is a very slippery slope. Anytime people group together there is a possibility of of things denegrating into a government, so there would have to be careful scrutiny of who's doing what.
I do disagree on cooperative living with rules set by the people who are doing it being a type of force. As I understand anarchy, so long as the people involved agree on what they are doing together, and there is no central form of governance, (like a group of elected leaders) where decisions are made by consensus or whatever decision making process they decide on, then that would be anarchy.
I just don't think having agreements and having rules is the same thing. Agreements between parties is different than having rules set by some sort of ruling entity.
I think we are just viewing anarchy in different lights, there are after all varying forms of it, depending on a persons view. Which is why I added the qualifier of calling it in this case "the absence of a central government". I thought this would help to eliminate any confusion about varying viewpoints on what anarchy meant.

 

I tend to agree with you, this was just something I thought would make for an interesting topic, sort of like a game, like one of these civilization creating games. The scenario I was explaining earlier talks about ways the people could use to avoid a central government, yet still protect their rights. Yes, it does involve force, but force is not an automatic disqualifier for anarchy, as I understand it. Mostly it is a central government that anarchist have problems with, and being forced into doing things they don't want to do. In my scenario, the people would have agreed to use the services of those who are in business to determine who is at fault when a persons rights have been violated. This is kind a short version of what I am trying to say and doesn't explain it in enough detail, but it is the gist of it.

Really, the only difference is the court system is a tool for a central government, the arbitration system I was trying to explain would probably consist of more than one arbiter, and people could choose who they wanted to deal with. The arbiter would have to be scrupulously honest, or else find himself out of business, or violate the right of the people he was arbitrating for, which would mean he would have to defend himself for that. This hinges on a morality question regarding each individual, and how they decide to live with the others. There is an online book I referred to in other posts that this comes from, and which explains it much better, and I am using the theories it presents here. In that book, it makes tons of sense.

I think the difference would be that there is no central government, and no redistribution of wealth. Each person would have fend for themselves, no government handouts, no welfare, etc.

True, but in the society I am thinking about, there is no one to go to in order to get anything over anyone else. The people would only have what they could earn themselves, so if they wanted more they would have to work harder. No politicians to take from one side and give to the other.

I think that in all societies there is some overlap of the viewpoints from the others that make them up (anarchists view life one way, Marxists another, democrats theirs ,etc. So while some of what I am saying may sound like it comes from other political views, it is purely Anarchist based on what I have read on the subject. I could be wrong, since I am not an expert. But that is why I would like to discuss it with people who are interested.

 

One of the most common things that happens when people try to discuss ideas is that they assume common definitions for every word they speak. This is far from the truth. We take on colloquial expressions. So it is necessary as we go into deeper concepts to come to common terms. The most reliable way is to refer to our dictionaries of common terms and allow these to settle disputes as to the meaning of terms.

For instance when you use the word world, what are you talking about. Are you talking about your personal world, the geographic entity world, or the world of human society etc..?

Having said all that, do you think anarchists need to know the meaning of the word anarchy? Wouldn't that mean that you bind them to some systematic approach?

 

Short form.

All civility is precisely equal to your relationship with the person standing next to you.

 

Sorry, I have to disagree. Basically being told I don't know what I am talking about and never broaching the subject of the thread tells me otherwise, I appreciate your point of view, but I felt the matter differently.

I agree totally. This forum is proof of that, if everyone could control themselves and be civil to one another there would be no need for moderators. What I was trying to do was just create a hypothetical situation and discuss how it would work, not change the world in a day. It is just supposed to be conversation, but too many people take it seriously, especially if you don't agree with their views.

That's for damn sure, if we could, we should have had one by now.

Thanks for your opinion tyrson

 

Better the rule of one,whom all obey
Than to let clamorous demagogues betray
Our Freedom with the kiss of Anarchy
Oscar Wilde

 

Ok, lets humour this for a moment..

Go for it!

Someone else say it, please. He can't see me

 

You were disagreeing about the definition of anarchy. I provided the definition so feelings, personal impressions wouldn't be brought into an intellectual
discussion to pollute premises.

Your agreement is evidenced by your deference to meagain's polite request.

The quickest way to do that is not to change established definitions. It is natural in such a discussion for these glaring discrepancies in the understanding of basic terms to invite comment.

May I suggest,
I propose that a societal system can be developed that does not employ central government.

That sounds interesting still kicking, what are your ideas on the subject?

But instead we get, you guys need to apply yourself to my special definition or you are just a troll.

This is incorrect., It only means that our previous learning had not served us well in this regard.

 

That's what I said, no central government, same thing, why do you need to make a big deal out nothing?

And, maybe, you should have taken the time to read what I posted, especially the part where I defined the term for the purposes of this thread. Is it so hard to read all of what someone posts? I added that qualifier just to head off this sort of issue, yet thedope, and now you, have to ignore it and make an issue of it.

We seemed to be doing ok until this:

Your previous post was a flippant response to a point I was trying to make regarding the thread, do you like people doing that to you?
The last part was pure bullshit, considering I had defined the word for you, you just couldn't be bothered to read it.

This:

was the last straw. I have been putting up with this troll for some time, and again, you have to throw a definition at me when I had already posted what I did about it, and told you about it.
You tell me:

You should take your own advice, and open your mind to an opinion from someone else, Obviously you have a very set definition of the term in your mind, and are not open to any other, even if it is just for a "maybe" scenerio. The definitions found in dictionaries are not set in stone, the one you posted depends on the context of it's use. The second definition is perfectly acceptable for what I am trying to discuss here, which is also why I posted the qualifier about it, which is also in perfect harmony with the definition you posted.
thedope seems intent on flooding this forum with what ever load of shit he feels like tossing around, whether it pertains to a subject or not, so, if we ever do discuss anything again, please know that and leave hm out of the conversation.
I'll unignore you if you wish to continue talking. If you do, I'll try to be more understanding of your position and ask you for clarification if I think something is derogatory.
My apologies for causing you any grief.

 

Wow, some time eh?
Yeah I guess 3 whole months and a hundred or so posts is "some time".

Yup, trolls usually are lifetime financial supporters of the forums they troll, earn high reputation from other members and get to a post count close to 12K.

Yup, thedope certainly is one of those get in, cause shit, get out kinda trolls all right.



Frankly your activities here smell much more trollish than ANYTHING or ANYONE you have so far accused of trolling.

But it will be amusing to follow your progress, at least until you get the axe.:smash:

 

The thing is you make a big deal out of a small error.

No central government is not the same as, any formal system of government in a society.

By definition then, your considerations do not qualify as anarchist thought, as you propose a formal system.

I proposed that an expression of the kind you would like to discuss would be substantially achieved by the short form I presented earlier.

All civility is precisely equal to your relationship to the person standing next to you.

 

It seems the conversation has been successfully redirected.

 

^
When you say hello to someone, do you keep saying hello for an hour? No.. you move on and usually ask something like "how are you?". No "redirecting" at all... it just happens so your mind doesn't rot from boredom

 

I thought it best to offer some evidence in support of my conclusions. Here it is:

Anarchists work towards a society of mutual aid and voluntary co-operation. We reject all government and economic repression. Mission statement of the newspaper Freedom (founded 1886)


Anarchism is generally defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful, or, alternatively, as opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations. Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on voluntary associations.
There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive. Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism. Strains of anarchism have been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications. Anarchism is often considered a radical left-wing ideology, and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, or participatory economics. However, anarchism has always included an individualist strain, egoist strain, and free market strain. Some individualist anarchists are also socialists or communists while some anarcho-communists are also individualists.
Anarchism as a mass social movement has regularly endured fluctuations in popularity. The central tendency of anarchism as a social movement has been represented by anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, with individualist anarchism being primarily a literary phenomenon which nevertheless did have an impact on the bigger currents and individualists have also participated in large anarchist organizations. Most anarchists oppose all forms of aggression, supporting self-defense or non-violence (anarcho-pacifism), while others have supported the use of some coercive measures, including violent revolution and propaganda of the deed, on the path to an anarchist society.


The term anarchism derives from the ancient Greek ἄναρχος, anarchos, meaning "without rulers", from the prefix ἀν- (an-, "without") + ἀρχός (arkhos, "leader", from ἀρχή arkhē, "authority, sovereignty, realm, magistracy")+ -ισμός (-ismos, from the suffix -ιζειν, -izein "-izing").


From wikiquotes:

Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others. Edward Abbey, in A Voice Crying in the Wilderness (Vox Clamantis en Deserto) : Notes from a Secret Journal (1990)

Anarchism...rests upon the doctrine that no man has a right to control by force the action of any other man.
Anarchism is defended on historic grounds: the evils are recited which have been wrought in human history by the employment of force compelling obedience by one will to another will, as they are seen in political and religious despotism, in the subjugation of women, in every form of brigandage from that of the Italian bands to that of the Napoleonic armies. It is conceded that evils might grow out of the abolition of all government; but it is insisted that they would be insignificant in comparison with the wrongs which have been perpetrated on mankind by the authority of government. Lyman Abbott, "The Cause and Cure of Anarchism" in The Outlook, Volume 70 (February 1902)

As the word "anarchy" etymologically signifies the negation of governmental authority, the absence of government, it follows that one indissoluble bond unites the anarchists. This is antagonism to all situations regulated by imposition, constraint, violence, governmental oppression, whether these are a product of all, a group, or of one person. In short, whoever denies that the intervention of government is for human relationships is an anarchist.
But this definition would have only a negative value did it not possess, as a practical complement, a conscious attempt to live outside this domination and servility which are incompatible with the anarchist conception.

An anarchist, therefore, is an individual who, whether he has been brought to it by a process of reasoning or by sentiment, lives to the greatest possible extent in a state of legitimate defence against authoritarian encroachments. From this it follows that anarchist individualism — the tendency which we believe contains the most profound realization of the anarchist idea — is not merely a philosophical doctrine — it is an attitude, an individual way of life. Emile Armand, in Anarchist Individualism as Life and Activity (1907)

Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it. Albert Einstein, as quoted by Virgil Henshaw in Albert Einstein : Philosopher Scientist (1949) edited by Paul A. Schilpp

The ideally non-violent state will be an ordered anarchy. That State is the best governed which is governed the least. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi in Gandhi's Wisdom Box (1942), edited by Dewan Ram Parkash, p. 67 also in Collected works of Mahatma Gandhi Vol. 79 (PDF), p. 122

Clearly, I am not the only one who thinks a peaceful Anarchist society is possible.
Also clearly, greater minds than mine understand what Anarchy is, please see the definitions above.

Today's societies have been brainwashed against the "evils" of anarchy by some pretty despicable sources. Most non anarchist governments will tell you all about how violent anarchy is. The problem is this is the pot calling the kettle black. Virtually all the governments on this planets engage in worse activities than what they accuse anarchy of.

So, the question remains. I will post some more in regards to my supposition when I am able. It IS possible for a peaceful anarchist society to exist.

Anarchy does not have to be violent. Yes, some anarchist use violence to achieve their goals. So do all governments. It does not have to be this way, and it will take the people of the world to change it. Start small and work up could work. Once people could see how successful it is, the idea would grow. If it worked, that is.

 

Here is an explanation of how things could work with this society.


The people in it would recognize that everyone had the same inalienable rights, as are explained when discussing natural rights. This means that every person in the society has the same rights. Moral determinations play no part in those rights. All the people consider that they have these rights by virtue of being human, and they all agree they apply equally to all humans.


These rights also carry responsibilities. For instance, they all have the right to live, and the only reason they could ever kill anyone is to defend themselves, or their property. So the responsibility side is that they have to respect everyone elses right to live.


They have the right to sustenance, but no one is going to give it to them, they either have to work for someone else to get it, or they have to grow what they need to eat themselves, or look for it on land not owned by anyone else. The responsibility side would then be that they cannot take it from anyone else.


They have the right to shelter. But, they are responsible for the soundness of whatever it is they put together to live in, and it has to be on either unclaimed property, or on their own property. The responsibility side is that they cannot infringe on other property with whatever they put up.


They have a right to property. They can lay claim to any unclaimed property, but they cannot take another persons property, and if a superior claim to the property is proven, they must give it up.


By using this concept of natural, inalienable or unalienable rights, and not allowing moral considerations, it takes the guess work out of determining the right or wrong of controversies. For instance, with the right to life, no one can take another persons life unless defending himself. There are no degrees of taking that life, as with our current, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree murder. It is murder, plain and simple.


Detractors of anarchy claim that nothing can work in an anarchy with no one running the show, as in with a government of sorts. Most anarchist schools of thought say that this is not so. As with most things in our current lifestyles, we use agreements to spell out how we will interact with each other for any given endeavor. Such as with forming a partnership for a business, etc.
In the type of society I am discussing here, this would be how everyone would agree to the things they would do together.
Let's leave out how these agreements will be enforced for a bit, to keep one post from getting too long.


So, a bunch of people find themselves on some land that has no owners, or they buy a parcel with the intent of creating their society on it. The firs thing they have to do is to agree on how to split up the property. This is done all the time, with intentional communities and, while it may take some time, it is not such an onerous thing.
So they have their land, and they have decided how much each person gets, and they have agreed on who gets what where. They then have to decide how to move about on the land, since they cannot use another persons land without approval. Some of them don't want anyone on their land at all, but others are not against it, but they want payment for others to use the land, so the ones who are ok with it, get together and form a road association. Each member owns the section of road on their land, and they determine how much they want for the use of their land. They either take care of the road themselves, and collect tolls from people who use it, or they hire others to do that for them. To make it simpler, they could just charge a flat fee, issue passes to those who want to use the road, and collect a monthly fee from the users. The fees would allow people ingress and egress only, they could not conduct business on it, and any people wanting to haul heavy freight, etc., would pay a larger fee since heavier use would do more damage to the road. The fees are used to maintain the roads, and pay for the work of managing them. The fees are for being able to cross others property, not for any other reason, so how the road is maintained is up to the people who own it. Those people who are ambitious would probably improve the roads on their land, and possible offer space for business, etc., to earn additional income.


In order to record who owns what, and where it is located, some of the people could form an association that records titles. There would obviously be others with the same interest, so competition to provide a better service, better fees, etc., would keep them mostly honest and scrupulous in how they attended to their business, otherwise they would lose business, and possibly their livelihood. The same sort of business could record title to vehicles, etc.


So, now the little fledgling community has a place to live, and ways of getting around on the land.


Coming next; how do they earn a living.

 

Since there is no central authority, the people can do whatever they like to earn a living. There are no regulatory agencies to tell them what they can or cannot do.


In order to deal with wastes, noise or other obnoxious results of business activities, they learn how to create products that minimize waste material, or generate only organic materials as waste that can be recycled. They all understand that their activities may impact on the property or livelihood of others, infringing on their rights, and that what they do could be an actionable offense.


Anyone who wants to hire an employee does so with a contract between the employee and the employer, which spells out the responsibilities of both parties. Pay scales would be dependent on the abilities of the employee. There would be no minimum wage.


Prices would be set according to how much the consumers were wiling to pay. There would be no government price fixing. No “free trade zones”.


Businesses would have to be honest, otherwise no one would use their products or services, meaning no business. The people running those businesses would get a bad name, and have a hard time doing business with anyone under any business name. If they sold shoddy products that harmed someone because of that, then it would be an actionable offense against the right of the consumer to receive value for their money.


As in any other society, businesses would need insurance, as would the individuals. The insurance companies would not insure those individuals or businesses that consistently had claims against them. This would be a selling point for the business, they were able to offer insurance against harm since the insurance company found them reliable, and they sold products or services that did not bring them into conflict with the buyers.


Cooperatives have been around for a long time. They would be an ideal business organization for an anarchist society. They are really nothing more than an association of individuals. The individuals work out the details of how the thing is to work, then they work together to put it into effect. There would be no corporations, all group efforts would be considered an association of individuals, who would have contracts with one another spelling out the details of the association.


This is obviously a very simplified accounting. All I am doing here is providing some background for discussion.


Since people always have issues with one another sooner or later, there has to be some way to decide those issues. This will be the next installment.

 

OP is talking about socialism, which is the opposite of anarchy.

Anarchy sounds like a great idea, until you pull your head out of your ass and realize that most people are not nice, and will not choose to behave nicely all the time without a form of rule.

And if you limit the people comming into your group, it's not anarchist, because that's a rule.

Dusputes are arbitraited, and it is called court. If you think you can make better courts, that sounds great, but you're playing semantics games.

Anarchism involves nobody owning anything, and maybe some people will be respectful and helpful, and some will be destructive and murderous and lecherious, and without rules ( and thus, the death of the "anarchy") you can't keep out the bad ones. You are talking about collectives, where everybody owns something, and thus, it is in the best interest of everybody to keep things fair and in good condition and functioning smoothly, and to limit those who would act destructively.

So, basically, you want a commune.

The only way to create an anarchist society is to act as an anarchist and just do you, because as soon as you even start a political movement, it's no longer anarchy. If you buy land, it's not anarchy. If you define a set of offenses and punishments or compensations, it's not anarchy. If you sell or buy things in a systematic manner, it's not anarchy. If you have more than the shirt on your back, it's not anarchy (in anarchy, anyone can walk into "your" house, do anything they want, etc... it's not your house or theirs)

Anarchy was the pet phillosophy of russians who where pissed that they had nothing, and that a few people had everything.... so they threw dynamite around and raised a stink, but it's a philosophy that, like leninism, is only widely appealing to people living in absolute squalor, with absolutely nothing: to them, it's moving up, because they can have anything anyone else can if they just take it. To anyone who can even feed themselves, it's a step backwards, because someone can TAKE their food, or even life, and there is NO recourse, because they OWN nothing and there are no laws.

 

RooRshack

No, if you had read my post a few posts back, people who are knowledgeable in the matter explain that it is basically just an absence of a central government:


“Anarchism is generally defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful, or, alternatively, as opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations. Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on voluntary associations.)-wikipedia

Of course there will have to be a way of resolving disputes, I am coming to that.

Again, I think you misunderstand what anarchism is. Anarchism is not about a lack of rules, it is about a lack of central government. People who are involved in anarchism are very aware of the concept of individual rights, and this is what is used to determine right or wrong in conflicts. I will post more on this soon. I don't remember saying other people would be limited to come into the group. If they did, and tried to change things be creating a central government entity of some sort, then I would suspect they would be met with resistance, and find it hard to live in the anarchist society, as no one would have dealings with them, so they would not be able to buy food, or the other things they need to live.

Arbitration is not court:
ar·bi·tra·tion
[ahr-bi-trey-shuh n]
noun

1. the hearing and determining of a dispute or the settling of differences between parties by a person or persons chosen or agreed to by them

An arbitrator can be anyone the parties consider to be honest enough to settle the dispute.

There is nothing in anarchist thought that says people don't own anything. At least so far from what I have read. If you know of any, please provide a link to the info. Of course, there would be some bad people end up in an anarchist society, they show up in all societies. The dispute resolving system I will soon post will show how problems arising from those situations can be dealt with, without a central government.

Cooperatives, (I assume this is what you mean by a collective) and similar are being used, and have been used for centuries as a means for people to associate with each other and conduct business of any sort. They have been shown to work just fine. I am talking about a free association of people who work out contracts between the parties involved to accomplish an end. It happens everyday in every country in some manner. The only difference is that in an anarchist society, there is no central government involved, just the parties to the association.

Communes, defined as:
com·mune

[kom-yoon] noun
1. a small group of persons living together, sharing possessions, work, income, etc., and often pursuing unconventional lifestyles.
2. a close-knit community of people who share common interests.
3. the smallest administrative division in France, Italy, Switzerland, etc., governed by a mayor assisted by a municipal council.
4. a similar division in some other country.
5. any community organized for the protection and promotion of local interests, and subordinate to the state.

They could be an anarchist society, and could be a way to start a change from the corrupt systems we are forced to live under today. But I am not talking about just communes.

Again, I think you misunderstand what anarchy is:
“Anarchists work towards a society of mutual aid and voluntary co-operation. We reject all government and economic repression. Mission statement of the newspaper Freedom (founded 1886)”


“Anarchism is generally defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful, or, alternatively, as opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations. Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on voluntary associations.”

I would be interested to know why you believe this is so.

How do you arrive at these conclusions? I am interested to know how this is considered to not be something anarchists would do. I have not read anything regarding anarchists that says they cannot own things.

I wasn't aware that anarchy originated in Russia. Can you provide some info where this is stated? Please take note of the article posted below.



I put a comment in bold, and underlined it in the material from Wikipedia below, that answers another of your statements above about anarchists not owning anything. It appears that the idea has been around for quite some time.


From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism


"The earliest anarchist themes can be found in the 6th century BC, among the works of Taoist philosopher Laozi,and in later centuries by Zhuangzi and Bao Jingyan. Zhuangzi's philosophy has been described by various sources as anarchist Zhuangzi wrote, "A petty thief is put in jail. A great brigand becomes a ruler of a Nation." Diogenes of Sinope and the Cynics, their contemporary Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism, also introduced similar topics
.The French renaissance political philosopher Étienne de La Boétie has been said to write an important anarchist precedent in his most famous work the Discourse on Voluntary Servitude. The radical Protestant Christian Gerrard Winstanley and his group the Diggers are cited by various authors as proposing anarchist social measures in the 17th century in England. The term "anarchist" first entered the English language in 1642, during the English Civil War, as a term of abuse, used by Royalists against their Roundhead opponents. By the time of the French Revolution some, such as the Enragés, began to use the term positively, in opposition to Jacobin centralisation of power, seeing "revolutionary government" as oxymoronic. By the turn of the 19th century, the English word "anarchism" had lost its initial negative connotation.
Modern anarchism sprang from the secular or religious thought of the Enlightenment, particularly Jean-Jacques Rousseau's arguments for the moral centrality of freedom. There were a variety of anarchist currents during the French Revolution, with some revolutionaries using the term "anarchiste" in a positive light as early as September 1793. The enragés opposed revolutionary government as a contradiction in terms. Denouncing the Jacobin dictatorship, Jean Varlet wrote in 1794 that "government and revolution are incompatible, unless the people wishes to set its constituted authorities in permanent insurrection against itself." During the French Revolution, Sylvain Maréchal, in his Manifesto of the Equals (1796), demanded "the communal enjoyment of the fruits of the earth" and looked forward to the disappearance of "the revolting distinction of rich and poor, of great and small, of masters and valets, of governors and governed." From this climate William Godwin developed what many consider the first expression of modern anarchist thought. Godwin was, according to Peter Kropotkin, "the first to formulate the political and economical conceptions of anarchism, even though he did not give that name to the ideas developed in his work", while Godwin attached his anarchist ideas to an early Edmund Burke. Benjamin Tucker instead credits Josiah Warren, an American who promoted stateless and voluntary communities where all goods and services were private, with being "the first man to expound and formulate the doctrine now known as Anarchism." The first to describe himself as an anarchist was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a French philosopher and politician, which led some to call him the founder of modern anarchist theory.
The anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque was the first person to describe himself as "libertarian". Unlike Proudhon, he argued that, "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature." In 1844 in Germany the post-hegelian philosopher Max Stirner published the book The Ego and Its Own which will later be considered an influential early text of individualist anarchism. Anarchists active in the 1848 Revolution in France, included Anselme Bellegarrigue, Ernest Coeurderoy, Joseph Déjacque and Pierre Joseph Proudhon."



So, if we can accept what has been written in this article, it appears that anarchism did not originate in Russia.


I am interested in seeing the material that brought you to your conclusions, so, if you would like to post your sources, I would appreciate it.

 

Roor, it's pointless unless Still Kicking follows your advice above.

 

Lol.... seeing his reply, I'm inclined to agree.

I was reading it, and thought, after each paragraph, that he was making pompous (and still incorrect, because you can twist semantics however you want) semantics arguments.... and then they kept comming, and comming, and comming. It's pointless. Call your judge an arbiter all you want, but you're not talking about anarchy, and even if you where, anarchy is retarded.

Also, yeah, we all credit the french revolution with everything not having to do with totalitarian shit, we also credit them with communism..... but the entire thing was a highly authoritarian disaster, with a "great terror" that would make stalin's greatest terrors look sort of wimpy, when considered in terms of scale of the day.