LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[Kaggeceria]

Yes, you being wrong doesn't stop you from making up whatever retarded meanings you want to assign to random words.

Ah, irony. So sweet, nectary, and delicious. :3

Cringe-tier response right there.

[Torrocca]

Ah, irony. So sweet, nectary, and delicious. :3

Cringe-tier response right there.

I can make cringier if you so desire. :3

[Mattopilos II]

Ah, irony. So sweet, nectary, and delicious. :3

Cringe-tier response right there.

Of a post doesn’t make you cringe, you aren’t on NS.

[Kaggeceria]

Cringe-tier response right there.

I can make cringier if you so desire. :3

I don't really think it's possible but I'd love to be surprised.

[Torrocca]

I can make cringier if you so desire. :3

I don't really think it's possible but I'd love to be surprised.

owo ch-ch-challenge accepted sempai~~

[Kaggeceria]

I don't really think it's possible but I'd love to be surprised.

owo ch-ch-challenge accepted sempai~~

Almost.

[Torrocca]

owo ch-ch-challenge accepted sempai~~

Almost.

Almost is good enough for me >:3

[Kannap]

Registered to vote at my current address and now - according to the state database - am not registered to vote anywhere in the state (old addresses or present one) so happy election season everybody.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

News flash: people can decide on things without leaders.

Sure, that is direct democracy. However, doesn't someone need to be responsible for the coordinating the process of implementing the decisions?

[Torrocca]

News flash: people can decide on things without leaders.

Sure, that is direct democracy. However, doesn't someone need to be responsible for the coordinating the process of implementing the decisions?

It can be coordinated and organized collectively.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

It can be coordinated and organized collectively.

Maybe, Torra. However, as a communist-community organizer, I have not seen it work well unless an individual is responsible.

[Torrocca]

It can be coordinated and organized collectively.

Maybe, Torra. However, as a communist-community organizer, I have not seen it work well unless an individual is responsible.

I mean, a person could also be chosen democratically to organize things without forsaking the whole idea of Anarchism.

[Northeast American Federation]

Maybe, Torra. However, as a communist-community organizer, I have not seen it work well unless an individual is responsible.

I mean, a person could also be chosen democratically to organize things without forsaking the whole idea of Anarchism.

Why/how is anarchism such a wonderfully perfect system that you absolutely must advocate for it in every thread that you peruse?

[Northern Davincia]

[Naaah. But, regardless, Anarchy and Anarchism are pretty synonymous, whereas Anarchy and chaos are not. :3

There is a type of Anarchy that's synonymous with chaos and bloodshed. It's called Anarcho-Capitalism.

delet this!

[Salus Maior]

Maybe, Torra. However, as a communist-community organizer, I have not seen it work well unless an individual is responsible.

I mean, a person could also be chosen democratically to organize things without forsaking the whole idea of Anarchism.

Electing a hierarch sounds like it pretty much forsakes the idea of anarchism.

[Northern Davincia]

You've been wrongly using Anarchy as a synonym for chaos. :^)

Anarchy breeds chaos.

Untrue, for as long as I have the monopoly on recreational nukes.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Maybe, Torra. However, as a communist-community organizer, I have not seen it work well unless an individual is responsible.

I mean, a person could also be chosen democratically to organize things without forsaking the whole idea of Anarchism.

No, they couldn't. The idea of anarchism is that no one is told what to do unless they're violating the rights of others, and no one having more authority than anyone else, right? That completely jettisons both those ideas.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

[Naaah. But, regardless, Anarchy and Anarchism are pretty synonymous, whereas Anarchy and chaos are not. :3

There is a type of Anarchy that's synonymous with chaos and bloodshed. It's called Anarcho-Capitalism.

How is Anarcho-Capitalism more chaotic or bloody than other schools of anarchism?

[Aellex]

Why would I take the definition of Wikipedia that anyone can edit and that precisely use some Anarchist book as a source for the [1] bit over paid professional who write the dictionary one and that are actually qualified when it comes to giving precise and accurate definition?

Dictionaries aren't definitive of a word in its political context.

But again we are talking about its normal sense and how it isn't what you claim it is. That was literally the whole point of the discussion.

[Kubra]

There is a type of Anarchy that's synonymous with chaos and bloodshed. It's called Anarcho-Capitalism.

How is Anarcho-Capitalism more chaotic or bloody than other schools of anarchism?

Because left-wing forms of anarchism have lots of rules, congresses and meetings to hash those out, as well as to enforce them. You could work towards left-wing anarchism, at least in terms of political structure, with a simple bit of electoral reform.
But the system of values governing the structure, well, that's the real meat of left-wing anarchism, the really revolutionary bit.

[Mattopilos II]

How is Anarcho-Capitalism more chaotic or bloody than other schools of anarchism?

Because left-wing forms of anarchism have lots of rules, congresses and meetings to hash those out, as well as to enforce them. You could work towards left-wing anarchism, at least in terms of political structure, with a simple bit of electoral reform.
But the system of values governing the structure, well, that's the real meat of left-wing anarchism, the really revolutionary bit.

That just sounds like saying a state without using the word. I hope this is satirical.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

How is Anarcho-Capitalism more chaotic or bloody than other schools of anarchism?

Because left-wing forms of anarchism have lots of rules, congresses and meetings to hash those out, as well as to enforce them. You could work towards left-wing anarchism, at least in terms of political structure, with a simple bit of electoral reform.
But the system of values governing the structure, well, that's the real meat of left-wing anarchism, the really revolutionary bit.

Left-anarchists want rules, congresses, meetings, enforcement, governing structure, and then call Ancaps not real anarchists?

[Torrocca]

I mean, a person could also be chosen democratically to organize things without forsaking the whole idea of Anarchism.

Electing a hierarch sounds like it pretty much forsakes the idea of anarchism.

That's... not at all what I said, really, but considering plenty of Anarchists argue against unjust hierarchies (as in, ones that people have little/no say in, among other concerns that'd make a hierarchy unjust) but are okay with just hierarchies (something like parents:children, perhaps something like a leader that the community democratically decides on who's entirely accountable to the community, etc.) that doesn't necessarily go against Anarchism. Basically vertical hierarchies bad, horizontal ones okay.

I mean, a person could also be chosen democratically to organize things without forsaking the whole idea of Anarchism.

No, they couldn't. The idea of anarchism is that no one is told what to do unless they're violating the rights of others,

Right. Voluntarily agreeing on having a leader in a non-hierarchical or horizontally hierarchical role where said leader is still essentially an equal to all others isn't something that goes against Anarchist principles.

and no one having more authority than anyone else, right?

Technically right, with nuance as stated above.

That completely jettisons both those ideas.

Not necessarily; if the community has the collective power of democratic decision making, they could feasibly create a non-hierarchical (or horizontally hierarchical) leadership position where everyone has a turn in the role and those leading are wholly accountable to the community.

[Kubra]

Because left-wing forms of anarchism have lots of rules, congresses and meetings to hash those out, as well as to enforce them. You could work towards left-wing anarchism, at least in terms of political structure, with a simple bit of electoral reform.
But the system of values governing the structure, well, that's the real meat of left-wing anarchism, the really revolutionary bit.

That just sounds like saying a state without using the word. I hope this is satirical.

Well I suppose you're not into that sort of thing, but hey, wouldn't you take offense if I called you a leftist?

Because left-wing forms of anarchism have lots of rules, congresses and meetings to hash those out, as well as to enforce them. You could work towards left-wing anarchism, at least in terms of political structure, with a simple bit of electoral reform.
But the system of values governing the structure, well, that's the real meat of left-wing anarchism, the really revolutionary bit.

Left-anarchists want to talk about rules, congresses, meetings, enforcement, governing structure, and then call Ancaps not real anarchists?

In a word: yes.
The genesis of anarchism was not an end to rules and governance. The founder, Proudhon, was french elected official and one time banker (that was fun) adopted the label mostly as a 'fuck-you', as is the french tradition. In practical political terms, anarchism was just radical decentralisation of commonplace governance (proudhon later dropped the label entirely and called himself a federalist), rather than its abolition.
The later generations were certainly more radical in actions on their criticisms of 'the state', but the boring fundamentals, the ones no one likes to talk about except at office meetings, remained the same.

The ancaps aren't the real "anarchists" because anarchism was something else entirely from what that lot wanted. One can certainly try to appropriate it, but even Rothbard gave up on that.

[Torrocca]

Because left-wing forms of anarchism have lots of rules, congresses and meetings to hash those out, as well as to enforce them. You could work towards left-wing anarchism, at least in terms of political structure, with a simple bit of electoral reform.
But the system of values governing the structure, well, that's the real meat of left-wing anarchism, the really revolutionary bit.

Left-anarchists want rules,

Anarchists stick by the saying, "rules, not rulers," so this is certainly true. If it's Anarchist, the rules would have to be decided on democratically, through getting the complete consensus of the community or through majority vote if a consensus was utterly impossible.

congresses,

Communal councils which everyone is a part of by virtue of living in the community, wherein the practice of direct participatory democracy (AKA the voluntary democracy of a community) would take place.

meetings,

In said communal councils.

enforcement,

Enforcement that's enforced by the entire community rather than a select few (unless consensually decided otherwise, of course; even then, those select few would be entirely accountable to the rest of the community, rather than an internal investigation or something like within a police force).

governing structure,

Self-governance as a community is entirely acceptable in Anarchism.

and then call Ancaps not real anarchists?

Yes. :3