Anarchists

Anarchy is a hypothetical utopia of no relevance to the real world.

 

i think that's a bit unfair on anarchism. a lot of contemporary notions of 'freedom', 'individuality' and 'rebellion' emanate from 60s anarchist practice and these things have left their mark, albeit more in style than substance. on another note, a rich guy i used to know once told me that all the best and most successful capitalists were the anarchists among them: those who recklessly flaunted convention and took outrageous risks i think he meant.

 

I've researched the governmental structure you folk call anarchy....


diffuse government is still government,

an absence of central government, if you still have a diffuse government, is still government

if you don't call it government, but it still performs the actions of governance, it's still government


I gave you the definitions, why can't you read them?

 

So what do you suggest they name their philosophy? Are you mad you didn't get a say in the definition or something?

 

ok the name mean something other then what the main philosphy is it still doesnt mean people cant use that philosphy i wouldnt disregard the whole way of thinking just cause the name is wronge, like i said its the philosophy that counts not the meaning of the word

 

I agree absolutely. My post was ment for a certain thick-headed individual on this board that can't seem to grasp that words don't have simply one meaning.

 

o i also totaly forgot about this the more modern used word that better explanes anarchy is liberterin socliest(sorry my spelling sucks)

 

if you will look all three definitions of anarchy are there......


none of them work for diffuse government......

 

To say such a thing is to neglect history. Have you heard of the Spanish Civil War?

 

What?

No infrastructure? No law enforcement? Why would you assume these things would not exist in an anarchist society?

There is little point of a military, if class society is gone. The military is used to protect and serve the interests of the ruling class, and as such, when there are no classes, there will be no need for a military.

There will be no business.

No classes = No need for government.

The government will be turned into an administrative entity, and the political system will be a form of direct democracy.

Could you elaborate?

They take them?

In an anarchist society people take what they need/want.

There was no communism in Russia. The USSR was officially socialist, not communist.

I think you are talking about socialism. There will be no money in a communist society.