I've found that about 99.9% of the time when ever someone complains about cut and paste it's because: 1. They dont want to take the time to look at information placed right in front of them. or 2. They don't have a well founded arguement and when pressed for sources or reasoning are caught off guard. Left with nothing to respond with they inevitably respond with "yeah, well, i dont care what the past has to say, if i didnt think it up on my own than it must not be relevent" or 3. They were not interested in sharing knowledge in the first place. They just thought it cute to throw in a couple slogans and make snide remarks. How odd that a person who puts so much emphasis on community dismisses articles as mere "cut and paste work"..... If you cant back up what you post with more than a one sentence "comeback", then why even bother? that's problem with collectivism, "act, dont think" I'm always slightly amused with collectivists don't seem to realize that their hive mentality is in no way representative of what a "community" is. How's that for reality, "dude"?
Simple thoughts are for simple minds. Did you even read Marx? Communist philosophy isn't exactly bathroom reading.... Shit, it took me a couple times to get through Philosophic Manuscripts of 1887... But i figured it was worth the effort.
I should know better than to try and have an intellectual debate in these forums. Cute slogans and snappy comebacks, thats whats important when you're talking politics, right? :H
Read what i posted, im neither. Im an anarchist. Individualism and Collectivism are both 2 sides to them same fucked up coin.
communism is not JUST a form of government, that i'll agree to. How can anarchism (individualist or collective) be considered forms of government? And to lump any kind of anarchism with capitalism makes no sence. Anarchism is anticapitalist.
wrong anarchism is: anti organized religion anti state anti capitalism against ALL forms of coersion and/force http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141093
What is a community other than a group of individuals working torward the same goal? Why, its a group of individuals or groups even competiting. There is only one community, the global community, and until that community becomes a group of individuals working torward the same goal, it will remain in a state of war or the state of nature. I believe very much in the general will, as it determines not only the rule of law (the legitimacy of the government minus due process essentially) but the basis of society. I see the negation of the negation in terms of the general will very often. Majority rule is mob rule, which is why democracy requires educated citizens. I believe all republics are A) without the necessary technology to run a true democracy (for example, the U.S. in 1776) or B) elitist, believing that representatives are necessary becuase those who are to be governed aren't intelligent enough or actually that their opinions are worth less because of their lack of education to represent themselves. Majority rule is democracy is mob rule and vise versa. If the current government doesn't reflect the general will (even the brainwashed general will), it will be demolished and replaced with a new government or altered (but Capitalism has to be demolished, as reforms don't seem to put much of a dent in it). John Locke said we had the right to revolution, and thats a right that the general will will decide to use once they realize their position in this world.
No enforcement. In an anarchist society no enforcement is needed or wanted. We're not talking about a takeover overnight where the country now calls itself "The Anarchist Republic of North America" or any crap like that. Anarchism will occur exactly how it exists... freely. That's not to say there wont be clashes between individuals and the state or anarchist communities and the state. That's really the sticking point between anarchists and communists. Communists want a new form of governmental that they can enforce by propaganda, military, and monetary resources and means. Anarchists want NO government. A communist government is just as oppressive to the worker and the individual as any other forms of government. On a society ready for anarchism: http://infoshop.org/faq/secA2.html#seca215 http://infoshop.org/faq/secA2.html#seca216
http://infoshop.org/faq/secA2.html#seca23 "The fact that anarchists are in favour of organisation may seem strange at first, but it is understandable. "For those with experience only of authoritarian organisation," argue two British anarchists, "it appears that organisation can only be totalitarian or democratic, and that those who disbelieve in government must by that token disbelieve in organisation at all. That is not so." [Stuart Christie and Albert Meltzer, The Floodgates of Anarchy, p. 122] In other words, because we live in a society in which virtually all forms of organisation are authoritarian, this makes them appear to be the only kind possible. What is usually not recognised is that this mode of organisation is historically conditioned, arising within a specific kind of society -- one whose motive principles are domination and exploitation. According to archaeologists and anthropologists, this kind of society has only existed for about 5,000 years, having appeared with the first primitive states based on conquest and slavery, in which the labour of slaves created a surplus which supported a ruling class. Prior to that time, for hundreds of thousands of years, human and proto-human societies were what Murray Bookchin calls "organic," that is, based on co-operative forms of economic activity involving mutual aid, free access to productive resources, and a sharing of the products of communal labour according to need. Although such societies probably had status rankings based on age, there were no hierarchies in the sense of institutionalised dominance-subordination relations enforced by coercive sanctions and resulting in class-stratification involving the economic exploitation of one class by another (see Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom). It must be emphasised, however, that anarchists do not advocate going "back to the Stone Age." We merely note that since the hierarchical-authoritarian mode of organisation is a relatively recent development in the course of human social evolution, there is no reason to suppose that it is somehow "fated" to be permanent. We do not think that human beings are genetically "programmed" for authoritarian, competitive, and aggressive behaviour, as there is no credible evidence to support this claim. On the contrary, such behaviour is socially conditioned, or learned, and as such, can be unlearned (see Ashley Montagu, The Nature of Human Aggression). We are not fatalists or genetic determinists, but believe in free will, which means that people can change the way they do things, including the way they organise society."
