What is to you the worst/most terrifying ideology?

[Arumdaum]

The Civil War started in response to the anarcho-syndicalist revolution.

Ummm... Clearly you never read Spanish History..

In 1936 there was an election. Which was narrowly won by the Left leaning "Popular Front". For years Spain had undergone several important changes, including secularization in a country where many were strongly catholic and traditional. There was increased polarization between left and right and after the 1936 election, Franco and his nationalist, falangist and monarchist allies were able to exploit the divisions in the country to launch a coup against the weak leftist government.

The coup caused the civil war, not some imagined 'anarchist revolution'.

Even though it didn't start the Civil War, there definitely was an 'anarchist revolution'.

[Delanshar]

The Bushmen are a small indigenous group in the Kalahari desert. Largely cut off from the Modern World. Just because something worked for them is hardly evidence that it would work for the rest of us.

And I say Catalonia was transitional in the sense that it sprang up due to a power vacuum caused by the Spanish Civil War. It was a radical response to a radical time. As such, we cannot expect it to be emulated anywhere unless there is a severe crisis that causes a breakdown in authority (which could easily happen in a great many places, but is hardly desirable).

Yes, they are. But can you imagine that before the advent of agriculture or surplus, all human societies were like this? Bushmen, American, etc. we're all human. There were even agricultural societies which were stateless, classless, and moneyless. And there's also been things such as the Free Territory, Anarchist Catalonia, and the Paris Commune.

A transition towards what? The people there would have wanted it to last. How else would it have formed? Does it even matter?

Before agriculture maybe. But that was then and this is now. Anarchism can't work in a world as complex as ours. Think about all the rules we have just to regulate copyright infringement. People need laws or else we live in the state of nature where everything goes. And there is no way to have laws without a government to pass them and enforce them.

[Delanshar]

Ummm... Clearly you never read Spanish History..

In 1936 there was an election. Which was narrowly won by the Left leaning "Popular Front". For years Spain had undergone several important changes, including secularization in a country where many were strongly catholic and traditional. There was increased polarization between left and right and after the 1936 election, Franco and his nationalist, falangist and monarchist allies were able to exploit the divisions in the country to launch a coup against the weak leftist government.

The coup caused the civil war, not some imagined 'anarchist revolution'.

Even though it didn't start the Civil War, there definitely was an 'anarchist revolution'.

Poor choice of words on my part. I meant that an anarchist revolution starting the Spanish Civil War was imagined, not that one never happened.

[New Embossia]

<Insert Religion> Extremism

[Marketalia]

Any collectivist or utopian ideology (socialism, communism, social democracy, nationalisms racial and otherwise).

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Yes, they are. But can you imagine that before the advent of agriculture or surplus, all human societies were like this? Bushmen, American, etc. we're all human. There were even agricultural societies which were stateless, classless, and moneyless. And there's also been things such as the Free Territory, Anarchist Catalonia, and the Paris Commune.

A transition towards what? The people there would have wanted it to last. How else would it have formed? Does it even matter?

Before agriculture maybe. But that was then and this is now. Anarchism can't work in a world as complex as ours. Think about all the rules we have just to regulate copyright infringement.

Those rules are designed to protect capitalism. There's no need for them.

People need laws or else we live in the state of nature where everything goes. And there is no way to have laws without a government to pass them and enforce them.

And again, we get back to the Paris Commune. There was democracy, and there was a government, but there was no state.

Government=/=state. That's important.

[Divair]

collectivist
utopian
social democracy.

This doesn't add up.

[Rivegna]

Liberalism, any sort of racial supremacism, all forms of Libertarian Socialism, and Capitalism.

[Divair]

Liberalism, any sort of racial supremacism, and Capitalism.

A conservative non-capitalist?


The confusion. It's mind boggling.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Liberalism, any sort of racial supremacism, and Capitalism.

A conservative non-capitalist?


The confusion. It's mind boggling.

It's Alaje.

[Immoren]

People need laws or else we live in the state of nature where everything goes.

Wat? What is this Hobbesian non-sense...

[Divair]

A conservative non-capitalist?


The confusion. It's mind boggling.

It's Alaje.

Say no more.

[United State of America]

Yeltsinism or neo-Nazism.

[Rivegna]

It's Alaje.

Say no more.

Sigged!!! You know ya'll love me.

[Divair]

Say no more.

Sigged!!! You know ya'll love me.

I'm not sure if I should be happy or scared.

[Rivegna]

Sigged!!! You know ya'll love me.

I'm not sure if I should be happy or scared.

Why would you be scared, I'm not that intimidating am I?

[Delanshar]

People need laws or else we live in the state of nature where everything goes.

Wat? What is this Hobbesian non-sense...

This "Hobbesian non-sense" is one of the cornerstones of the modern social structure. It's the reason thugs don't come and steal your computer right now, it's the reason religious militias haven't burned your school to the ground. For the most part laws and their enforcement stop people from following their baser urges and descending into mindless violence.

People agree to be governed and in turn the state provides laws and security to the populace. Without laws, humans are no different than any other animal and this is why we must steer clear of anarchism.

Anarchy cannot provide laws or enforce them in a consistent manner. The Paris Commune, commonly heralded by anarchists and marxists alike as a triumph of the working class, lasted for 3 months and would never have even happened were it not for the power vacuum caused by the Franco-Prussian War. Furthermore, due to it's short duration and violent end, it can hardly be seen as a desirable alternative to what we have now in the USA. Capitalism and Republicanism.

[The USOT]

Wat? What is this Hobbesian non-sense...

This "Hobbesian non-sense" is one of the cornerstones of the modern social structure. It's the reason thugs don't come and steal your computer right now, it's the reason religious militias haven't burned your school to the ground. For the most part laws and their enforcement stop people from following their baser urges and descending into mindless violence.

People agree to be governed and in turn the state provides laws and security to the populace. Without laws, humans are no different than any other animal and this is why we must steer clear of anarchism.

Anarchy cannot provide laws or enforce them in a consistent manner. The Paris Commune, commonly heralded by anarchists and marxists alike as a triumph of the working class, lasted for 3 months and would never have even happened were it not for the power vacuum caused by the Franco-Prussian War. Furthermore, due to it's short duration and violent end, it can hardly be seen as a desirable alternative to what we have now in the USA. Capitalism and Republicanism.

The conditions in which it was able to create are very desirable. I dont care how military capable the municipality is. In the modern era, thats not as much of a requirement anymore.

[Eldritch Love]

apathy.

[Torsiedelle]

Conservatism or Capitalism

[Delanshar]

This "Hobbesian non-sense" is one of the cornerstones of the modern social structure. It's the reason thugs don't come and steal your computer right now, it's the reason religious militias haven't burned your school to the ground. For the most part laws and their enforcement stop people from following their baser urges and descending into mindless violence.

People agree to be governed and in turn the state provides laws and security to the populace. Without laws, humans are no different than any other animal and this is why we must steer clear of anarchism.

Anarchy cannot provide laws or enforce them in a consistent manner. The Paris Commune, commonly heralded by anarchists and marxists alike as a triumph of the working class, lasted for 3 months and would never have even happened were it not for the power vacuum caused by the Franco-Prussian War. Furthermore, due to it's short duration and violent end, it can hardly be seen as a desirable alternative to what we have now in the USA. Capitalism and Republicanism.

The conditions in which it was able to create are very desirable. I dont care how military capable the municipality is. In the modern era, thats not as much of a requirement anymore.

The Modern Era makes it more important to have a strong security force, not less. Even in a decentralized commune, A lack of authority leads to a power vacuum. A power vacuum will be exploited by militant extremists (see Somalia). Thus your anarchist dream quickly turns into a fundamentalist nightmare.

With modern travel and communications it becomes easy for militants to travel to such a spot even from halfway across the globe (which is why you have Chechens training in Somalia and Bosnians training in Afghanistan and Tajiks in Northern Mali.) All of these places lack a strong state. This makes them the ideal home to militants and jihadists the world over.


But this is a deviation from my original argument. Which is that, considering the risks, an anarchist society simply is NOT DESIRABLE compared to Western Free-market Liberal Democracy. What is there to gain?
Security? No way.
A High Income Job? Yeah good luck with that, all the investors are gone.
Education? Whose gonna pay for the public schools

[Nazi Flower Power]

What is to you the most terrifying ideology?

Anarchism, particularly the versions that don't believe in private property.

The State is necessary to keep us safe. Large-scale violence caused by national governments gone wrong (e.g. the Holocaust, the Cultural Revolution, etc.) statistically kills fewer people than the small-scale violence (domestic violence, feuds between neighbors, etc.) that occurs in less centralized systems like tribal societies.

And some concept of ownership is necessary to make sure that those who work to provide for themselves are able to enjoy the benefits of their work. Even in a very primitive economy, if I make a tool for my own use, I need to have the right to keep that tool. People can share when they want to, but the person who made the tool, earned the money, etc. needs to be the one deciding whether to share or not.

[Saluterre]

Any collectivist or utopian ideology (socialism, communism, social democracy, nationalisms racial and otherwise).

Social democracy is not the slightest bit utopian, socialism and communism have many variants with strong theoretical roots (I.E. Marxism, Market socialism, etc.)

Ethnic nationalism is dystopian.

[Saluterre]

What is to you the most terrifying ideology?

Anarchism, particularly the versions that don't believe in private property.

Private property or personal property? Big difference.

If you mean the latter I agree with you.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Anarchism, particularly the versions that don't believe in private property.

Private property or personal property? Big difference.

If you mean the latter I agree with you.

Personal property is a form of private property. I am not sure if the distinction you mean to make is between individual ownership vs. corporate ownership or if it's portable objects vs. real estate. Some forms of private ownership may be more important than others, but they are all useful.

Property tax is OK to discourage people from buying property that they are not going to use. I am not one of those right-wing fanatics who thinks owning a piece of land means you no longer have any social obligations.