What do you think about anarchists?

[Sibirsky]

By the fact that bosses do not have authority over employees outside of work.

They're still rulers. The 'voluntary rule' of someone over someone else doesn't make it non-rule. Hence, capitalism isn't anarchist.

Yes, they are rulers. But only in the workplace and only with the employee's consent. As such, capitalism is fully compatible with anarchism.

[Socialist Czechia]

I consider anarchism silly, but anarcho-syndicalism is interesting concept, since it basically prevents totalitarianism as much as chaos and allows at least minimal, necessary portion of bureaucracy.

[Settrah]

I think the ideology of anarchism is foolish, and that the idea of a anarchist society is unrealistic and undesirable.

However, I try not to judge people by their political affiliations, so I don't have one opinion for all people who are anarchists. Some anarchists are kind, smart people, while other anarchists are asssholes. I judge the individual by their actions, not their ideology. Ergo, I will not group all anarchists into one "category."

Which is try I treat it more as a methodology than an ideology. An umbrella term that attaches to other ideologies, to explain the process of how they intend to achieve their goals, rather than intrinsically a goal in of itself.

[The Cobalt Sky]

I think they're utter jerks for promoting crime!
Get rekt skrubz

Anarchists do not promote crime.

Wouldn't those be laws then?

Also, this topic may cover this discussion:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=322515&p=22694403#p22694403

Anarchy = no rulers.

It says nothing about laws.

Who enforces the laws, then?

[Settrah]

Anarchists do not promote crime.

Anarchy = no rulers.

It says nothing about laws.

Who enforces the laws, then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_class

[Sibirsky]

No. Their rule is limited and voluntary.

So, say..
if nobody conformed to a capitalists, capitalists will be okay with not being productive?

This makes no sense. Everyone is self employed all of a sudden or what?

Also, what if we happen to find no use of currency in the future? What would become of capitalism?

So you propose barter? That sure is inefficient.

How would capitalism fare in a cynical and perfectionistic world?

Irrelevant. All systems of trade rely on trust, protection, retribution, etc.

[Zottistan]

Yes it would be laws, because anarchism means without rulers, not without laws. And got it litorale

How can you have laws without a ruling party? That doesn't make sense.

[The Cobalt Sky]

Who enforces the laws, then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_class

You mean... aristocrats?

[Servica]

I think the ideology of anarchism is foolish, and that the idea of a anarchist society is unrealistic and undesirable.

However, I try not to judge people by their political affiliations, so I don't have one opinion for all people who are anarchists. Some anarchists are kind, smart people, while other anarchists are asssholes. I judge the individual by their actions, not their ideology. Ergo, I will not group all anarchists into one "category."

That sounds pretty much like what a stern hunter would think of an agricultural society.
An "anarchist society" would make use of all existing and possible utilities to increase the quality of life for everybody.
Though I agree that individuals should be judged by their thought, I think you should look another inch deeper.
With the existence of the 'actually-existing' government, anything that could better the conditions with disregard for specific self-interest, especially relative to that of the 'leaders' or 'representatives' is almost always considered a crime.

[Sibirsky]

Cuba is socialist. Canada is capitalist. They coexist. Get it? Very basic.

So, country A gets rid of their government and becomes anarchist. Country B retains their government and stays statist.

Still confused?

Oh right, you're saying the countries co-exist in the world.

I thought you were implying that the two systems could co-exist in the same country.

Yeah, that's my bad. Misunderstood that.

They could.

Business A is owned by Mr. B. It is capitalist.

Business C is owned by the 10,000 employees that work there. It is socialist.

Town D has no local government in the proper sense.

Town E has an elected council and even collects taxes.

[MERIZoC]

Anarchists do not promote crime.

Anarchy = no rulers.

It says nothing about laws.

Who enforces the laws, then?

The people do. If person A murders someone, and the collective takes action against them, then it can be reasonably considered self-defense, since we are protecting the community from someone who employs coercion against other people.

[The GAmeTopians]

Yes it would be laws, because anarchism means without rulers, not without laws. And got it litorale

How can you have laws without a ruling party? That doesn't make sense.

True democracy. Every citizen participates in the decision making, thus no ruling party.

[Sibirsky]

Are Cuba's businesses really socially owned? Does it have any form of socialism, even state socialism?

Yes.

[Sibirsky]

I think the ideology of anarchism is foolish, and that the idea of a anarchist society is unrealistic and undesirable.

However, I try not to judge people by their political affiliations, so I don't have one opinion for all people who are anarchists. Some anarchists are kind, smart people, while other anarchists are asssholes. I judge the individual by their actions, not their ideology. Ergo, I will not group all anarchists into one "category."

How can a voluntary society be undesirable?

[MERIZoC]

Oh right, you're saying the countries co-exist in the world.

I thought you were implying that the two systems could co-exist in the same country.

Yeah, that's my bad. Misunderstood that.

They could.

Business A is owned by Mr. B. It is capitalist.

Business C is owned by the 10,000 employees that work there. It is socialist.

Town D has no local government in the proper sense.

Town E has an elected council and even collects taxes.

Well, town D would still be under a de jure government (Federal or provincial), even if the rule wasn't de facto.

[The Cobalt Sky]

Who enforces the laws, then?

The people do. If person A murders someone, and the collective takes action against them, then it can be reasonably considered self-defense, since we are protecting the community from someone who employs coercion against other people.

The people would then be rulers of themselves though, right? So wouldn't there still be rulers, even if the power is far more divided?

[Sibirsky]

Anarchists do not promote crime.

Anarchy = no rulers.

It says nothing about laws.

Who enforces the laws, then?

Depends on the type of anarchism this is in. The people, private groups, private police, courts, arbitration groups.

[Thyskaland]

Mostly naive idealists disconnected from the realpolitik. Quoting Kropotkin, Proudhon and Malatesta just isn't as stylishly edgy as it used to be.

[Skinia]

Public ownership = state ownership.

Actually I was referring to public ownership as owned by the public. But that was probably a very bad use of wording (due to it meaning something completely opposite). Replace that with common, or mutual, ownership.

Then I have nothing else to object to.

I think the ideology of anarchism is foolish, and that the idea of a anarchist society is unrealistic and undesirable.

However, I try not to judge people by their political affiliations, so I don't have one opinion for all people who are anarchists. Some anarchists are kind, smart people, while other anarchists are asssholes. I judge the individual by their actions, not their ideology. Ergo, I will not group all anarchists into one "category."

An anarchist society is neither unrealistic nor undesirable. A statist society is a relatively new concept in human history. It being desirable or not is largely a question of personal preference and thus irrelevant. There exist many examples of anarchism working in past and present.

[Sibirsky]

How can you have laws without a ruling party? That doesn't make sense.

True democracy. Every citizen participates in the decision making, thus no ruling party.

So you would force people to vote and make decisions?

Who would do the forcing? How is this not a ruling party?

How is this anarchist?

[The Cobalt Sky]

Who enforces the laws, then?

Depends on the type of anarchism this is in. The people, private groups, private police, courts, arbitration groups.

Then, even if the people exercise some sort of power, wouldn't they be the rulers? Of themselves, at least?

[Saviola]

I was speaking hypothetically. If anarchism was truly in the best interest of the majority of the population, we likely would have seen an anarchist revolution of some form, but have we? No. Because anarchism could not work. Also, in socialist countries the majority of people long for democracy but their government crushes all resistance to its rule. If the people of those countries could change the government, the majority would change it to democracy. To quote John F. Kennedy:

"Democracy is not perfect."

No political system is perfect, but some are much worse than others. If you believe anarchism is truly the way forward, then you are entitled to that belief, but I am just trying to make my point here.

[Terra Sector Union]

Anarchists are a cancer to civilized, orderly society.

[MERIZoC]

The people do. If person A murders someone, and the collective takes action against them, then it can be reasonably considered self-defense, since we are protecting the community from someone who employs coercion against other people.

The people would then be rulers of themselves though, right? So wouldn't there still be rulers, even if the power is far more divided?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. If I try to murder you, you can act in self defense, and possibly even kill me first. That's not coercion, because I tried to harm you in the first place. If I murder you, then the community would be quite reasonable to feel threatened, and could take action against me. Again, not coercion, because I have already engaged in an act of violence against the community.

[Skinia]

They're still rulers. The 'voluntary rule' of someone over someone else doesn't make it non-rule. Hence, capitalism isn't anarchist.

Yes, they are rulers. But only in the workplace and only with the employee's consent. As such, capitalism is fully compatible with anarchism.

But you said it yourself: Anarchy = no rulers.

Anarchy = no rulers, not no laws.

Most of anarchist writing deals with issues of crime, and how to address it.

In political science, you fail.

Anarchy = no rulers.

It says nothing about laws.