.......... wrote:
Better for whom?

The rich are richer, the poor are still poor.

.......... wrote:
I refer you to the etymology of the word posted near the start of the thread in a bid to avoid further embarrassment.

If you were watching the news & there was a report of a load of people smashing windows & being generally unruly & the news report labelled them 'anarchists' ....you'd agree that they were indeed anarchists?
You'd be plainly oblivious to how clever and devious the media & the establishment are at disempowering both ideology & language.
Why would they want to do that? Isn't it totally obvious?!

Mike wrote:
Yea, i like the idea of a more peaceful world without a billionaire ruling class who gets to have a higher quality of life than the poor.

But i'm not exactly sure Anarchy is the right term or solution for that.

If the same people from the village in Uganda were to beat a Royal or Lord Rothschild to death would the response be the same.

Was the 2011 London riots not Anarchy?

Did the rioters go to Buckingham Palace to give the Royal's a real dose of Anarchy........No

Anarchist frauds...

entrangermercenary1 wrote:
I'm sorry but this is just flagrant stupidity. For a man who claims he knows all because he's been to lots of airports you're not doing very well in substantiating your font of all wisdom credentials. As Oioioi pointed out earlier (though it seemed to sail straight over your head) this is a bit like saying capitalist democracy cannot work because shoplifters exist.
In the world today, people starve while half the food gets chucked away. Plenty of people cannot get the shoes. clothes etc they need or desire. Plenty of people cannot work...even if they want to. So by your 'logic' government is an abject failure...isn't it?

Anarchism is a political ideology that aims at direct democracy as opposed to a small clique holding the majority of the wealth and power - you know those people that have a habit of starting all the big wars. It is not utopia, it is not perfection, it is simply getting people to get it out of their heads that unless some fat fuck is getting rich off their labour society will apparently collapse altogether. It is getting people to realise they don't actually need the boss - who is more often than not a drag factor in getting shit done - at least that's my experience of upper management. Unfortunately, people have been blagged into thinking unless David Cameron sits in number 10 chatting shit day in day out a rain of fire and blood will fall from the skies.

Jesus fucking Christ - it's simply amazing how people have been suckered into thinking not having a few cunts in suits pulling all the strings is some mad utopian idea. I'm sure any future anarchist society can arrange for you to be chained next to a kennel (guarded by abs in his bath robe with a big whip I reckon) so you can indulge your masochistic dominance fetish.

Space Bandit wrote:
Anarchists just need to come up with a new name and flag for their ideology.

Because "Anarchy" is not working.

Call it the "Positive people's movement to overthrow the ruling class" but not "anarchy.

oioioi wrote:

I WANTED to fuck wonder women once upon a time...realized I could not grow that tall, and it was just a fantasy
So you still not answered about the criminally insane, who will stop them when they go on the old berserker routine ? Who will arrest him/her or will you wait for them to fall asleep and the posse will jump on them Who will decide if its a bad day at the office for that person, a judge..hmmm no judges...a committee ? How will people be voted on to the committee ?

FFS the reptillian theory has more legs than this

.......... wrote:
It'd probably be more straightforward to convince all anarchists of this than to get you to accept the definition of anarchy.

You're right, anarchy exists in many levels of the capitalist pyramid.

If you consider anarchy the absence of external oversight or regulation, I think we can all find a few examples.

.......... wrote:
No offence RA, but I think you need to read up on anarchism - the ideology, not the colloquial association with people running round attacking everything,. Anarchism isn't even one thing - it is very broad - there is a huge gulf between anarcho-capitalists and anarchist communists for example. It is not one thing. It is really a range of ideologies that simply do not believe in centralised power.

entrangermercenary1 wrote:
First we sow the seed....

Then we grow the seed....

Then we eat the seed.

Your mind is fertile ground for stage one

Mike wrote:
I think people need to realise just how much anarcho-capitalist ideas have influenced today's world.

What I deem the 'dark side' of anarchy.

oioioi wrote:
If you post one video of a group of anarchists making an attempt to overthrow Buckingham Palace i will accept your response.

.......... wrote:
The etymology is fine.
People being suckered into thinking it means something else is the problem.

.......... wrote:

dogsmilk wrote:
You sound bitter and twisted, didnt you make the upper management grade ?
Will there still be the need for a police force ?
So your calling oi stupid !!oh dear...How will everybody have what they want ? Explain to the real world how this will work ? You get rid of the bosses..ok..then what ? Who drives what forward...the pot smokers So when I turn around and tell you to fuck off will you put me on the naughty step ?
You are trying to rewire human genetics, every tribe has a leader, every tribe has laws to be adhered to, if not they get the old spear up the jacksy.
err any more definitions of anarchy, so far we have direct democracy
Then we have the social engineering aspect
Im sure by 0400hrs there will be plenty more along.
The only decent thing about your post is the suggestion about abs

Hurry up and answer ive to go to assassins anonymous soon..what a chore ...hello my name is paul, weapon of choice frf1

dogsmilk wrote:
Fair enough but i was just going off the mainstream association which is undeniably "people running round attacking everything"

And i don't see anything wrong with anarcho-capitalists but maybe they should just be called anti-capitalists.

That way the average person has a better understanding.

oioioi wrote:
As long as Im alive with my gang this will not come into fruition

Only abs will be sowing any seed

.......... wrote: Watt Tyler 14th Century?

entrangermercenary1 wrote:
Anarchist society faces first major challenge
Anarchy in the UK faced its first major challenge today when society was confronted with the conundrum of how to cope with the criminally insane. While most of society adapted to doing stuff for the rational mutual benefit of mankind, one individual known only as "Entrangermercenary" was first noticed wandering bewildered in a park. Eyewitnesses reported he was heard muttering "master...master...where are you master? Help me master...I don't know what to do...I cannot function without orders...for God's sake someone tell me what to do!". He later removed all his clothes, covered himself with his own excrement and cornered a terrified four year old child demanding they issue futile tasks and then dispense small rectangles of paper as a reward. Some people exercising their capability of thinking for themselves donned rubber gloves and wrestled the poor individual to the ground, deciding to lock him in a shed before deciding what to do next. This will probably involve some discussing shit probably followed by some medical treatment. So no biggie really as it turns out.

dogsmilk wrote: There we have it...discussing shit...but you missed out the discussion will be lasting for endless months, when a good brick to the head would suffice