More economic GOOD News...DOW hits new record..on track to hit 17K.

[Marxist]

Yeah, that's clearly working, not like CEO'S are raking in massive bonuses, productivity is massively high and not going down to the workers in terms of wages, which are stagnant.. The problem for me is, we don't need capitalists to achieve any of this.

Don't need capitalist? Let's here your plan.

Have you heard of the paris commune? The anarchists in spain? The free ukraine territories? Check out my signature.

Yes, I've heard of the Paris commune. It ruled Paris for less than a month but as with all anarchy, it failed. Anarchy is not a form of government but rather the absence of it. In an anarchy there can't be one man more powerful than another because then that man and his disciples will eventually over time rise to a higher and higher power thus forming a monarchy or some other form of government. This is why anarchy is destined to fail.

18 March to 28 May 1871.

More then just the commune, and it didn't fail due to being anarchy.. It failed due to mass slaughter by the french armed forces, as with the other examples of anarchism. The free territory of ukraine? Killed and slaughtered. Of course it's the absence of it, but many anarchists have a democratic platform with worker cooperation, without the state. It's not destined to fail, you can say anything you want, I don't think the people will allow that to happen.

How would you in vision an anarchy in the United States?

Read into how previous anarchist areas functioned, I imagine we can put some new modern context onto it.

 

[Flopper]

Don't need capitalist? Let's here your plan.

Have you heard of the paris commune? The anarchists in spain? The free ukraine territories? Check out my signature.

Yes, I've heard of the Paris commune. It ruled Paris for less than a month but as with all anarchy, it failed. Anarchy is not a form of government but rather the absence of it. In an anarchy there can't be one man more powerful than another because then that man and his disciples will eventually over time rise to a higher and higher power thus forming a monarchy or some other form of government. This is why anarchy is destined to fail.

18 March to 28 May 1871.

More then just the commune, and it didn't fail due to being anarchy.. It failed due to mass slaughter by the french armed forces, as with the other examples of anarchism. The free territory of ukraine? Killed and slaughtered. Of course it's the absence of it, but many anarchists have a democratic platform with worker cooperation, without the state. It's not destined to fail, you can say anything you want, I don't think the people will allow that to happen.

How would you in vision an anarchy in the United States?

Read into how previous anarchist areas functioned, I imagine we can put some new modern context onto it.

I don't see how it could possibly work in a large industrialized society consisting of many divergent ethnic, racial, and economic groups..

 

[Marxist]

Have you heard of the paris commune? The anarchists in spain? The free ukraine territories? Check out my signature.

Yes, I've heard of the Paris commune. It ruled Paris for less than a month but as with all anarchy, it failed. Anarchy is not a form of government but rather the absence of it. In an anarchy there can't be one man more powerful than another because then that man and his disciples will eventually over time rise to a higher and higher power thus forming a monarchy or some other form of government. This is why anarchy is destined to fail.

18 March to 28 May 1871.

More then just the commune, and it didn't fail due to being anarchy.. It failed due to mass slaughter by the french armed forces, as with the other examples of anarchism. The free territory of ukraine? Killed and slaughtered. Of course it's the absence of it, but many anarchists have a democratic platform with worker cooperation, without the state. It's not destined to fail, you can say anything you want, I don't think the people will allow that to happen.

How would you in vision an anarchy in the United States?

Read into how previous anarchist areas functioned, I imagine we can put some new modern context onto it.

I don't see how it could possibly work in a large industrialized society consisting of many divergent ethnic, racial, and economic groups..

I don't see how anything could work when you put it like that, it wasn't perfect, but you know..

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Read it an weep gloom and doom conserverinos!

Dow Average and S&P 500 Hit New Highs
Stocks Notch Records as Beaten-Down Shares Mount a Rally

nvestors snapped up shares of companies large and small, driving major indexes to records and reviving beaten-down technology stocks.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 112.13 points, or 0.7%, to 16695.47, notching its second record finish in as many sessions and its third new high of 2014. The Dow notched 52 records in 2013.

The S&P 500 added 18.17 points, or 1%, to 1896.65, squeezing out its ninth record close of the year.

That along with a great April jobs report should really be making you folks cry.

LOL! So you'll be touting a plastic banana jobs report, just as you're touting the phones baloney Market?

I guess that we can rest assured that you'll take no responsibility for the massive crash that comes when the Fed quits buying equities and hyper-inflation burns the dollar?

 

[Andylusion]

Yes, I've heard of the Paris commune. It ruled Paris for less than a month but as with all anarchy, it failed. Anarchy is not a form of government but rather the absence of it. In an anarchy there can't be one man more powerful than another because then that man and his disciples will eventually over time rise to a higher and higher power thus forming a monarchy or some other form of government. This is why anarchy is destined to fail.

18 March to 28 May 1871.

More then just the commune, and it didn't fail due to being anarchy.. It failed due to mass slaughter by the french armed forces, as with the other examples of anarchism. The free territory of ukraine? Killed and slaughtered. Of course it's the absence of it, but many anarchists have a democratic platform with worker cooperation, without the state. It's not destined to fail, you can say anything you want, I don't think the people will allow that to happen.

How would you in vision an anarchy in the United States?

Read into how previous anarchist areas functioned, I imagine we can put some new modern context onto it.

I don't see how it could possibly work in a large industrialized society consisting of many divergent ethnic, racial, and economic groups..

I don't see how anything could work when you put it like that, it wasn't perfect, but you know..

But... ugh. The problem is, in any system you want to put in place, including 'anarchy', the result is someone has to enforce that system, negating Anarchy. You just can't get everyone to follow your system, no matter what system you have, without force. No matter what decentralized non-government system you want to enforce, there will always be those with the force to impose their system on Anarchy, which by definition, can't command a force to impose itself.

You can say the Paris commune didn't fail because of Anarchy, but in fact that is exactly why it failed. Every system you want, must be enforced. The commune couldn't enforce itself on the public, and so it failed. The military of the competing system, put down the commune.

The only time a socialized system can work, is when it isn't based on an anarchy system, and has a strong centralized government to enforce it, such as the Soviet Union.

Capitalism too, can't work without a strong central government to impose the rules of the system on the public.

So a non-centralized, 'communal' system can never exist. No matter how you try it, no matter what set of rules you put in place, without the power to enforce itself, someone else will gain that power and either take control of the system brutally, or brutally enforce their own system, and eliminate the communal system.

This is simply how it works. That's why when you say "what is real socialism" or "real communism", we point to Pol Pot, Maoism, Stalinism, Cuba, Venezuela, and the Soviet Union and so on. You say that isn't 'real' social/communism... but it in fact is. It is the system that socialism and communism unavoidably results in.

That's why you can't point to an example of your system that works. Because it doesn't. A few months of the Paris Commune, is not a success. It's a failure. As all of them are failures.

 

[Marxist]

More then just the commune, and it didn't fail due to being anarchy.. It failed due to mass slaughter by the french armed forces, as with the other examples of anarchism. The free territory of ukraine? Killed and slaughtered. Of course it's the absence of it, but many anarchists have a democratic platform with worker cooperation, without the state. It's not destined to fail, you can say anything you want, I don't think the people will allow that to happen.

How would you in vision an anarchy in the United States?

Read into how previous anarchist areas functioned, I imagine we can put some new modern context onto it.

I don't see how it could possibly work in a large industrialized society consisting of many divergent ethnic, racial, and economic groups..

I don't see how anything could work when you put it like that, it wasn't perfect, but you know..

But... ugh. The problem is, in any system you want to put in place, including 'anarchy', the result is someone has to enforce that system, negating Anarchy. You just can't get everyone to follow your system, no matter what system you have, without force. No matter what decentralized non-government system you want to enforce, there will always be those with the force to impose their system on Anarchy, which by definition, can't command a force to impose itself.

You can say the Paris commune didn't fail because of Anarchy, but in fact that is exactly why it failed. Every system you want, must be enforced. The commune couldn't enforce itself on the public, and so it failed. The military of the competing system, put down the commune.

The only time a socialized system can work, is when it isn't based on an anarchy system, and has a strong centralized government to enforce it, such as the Soviet Union.

Capitalism too, can't work without a strong central government to impose the rules of the system on the public.

So a non-centralized, 'communal' system can never exist. No matter how you try it, no matter what set of rules you put in place, without the power to enforce itself, someone else will gain that power and either take control of the system brutally, or brutally enforce their own system, and eliminate the communal system.

This is simply how it works. That's why when you say "what is real socialism" or "real communism", we point to Pol Pot, Maoism, Stalinism, Cuba, Venezuela, and the Soviet Union and so on. You say that isn't 'real' social/communism... but it in fact is. It is the system that socialism and communism unavoidably results in.

That's why you can't point to an example of your system that works. Because it doesn't. A few months of the Paris Commune, is not a success. It's a failure. As all of them are failures.

You keep cherry picking the paris commune. Tell me more about revolutionary Catalonia, the free ukraine territories..

 

[Andylusion]

How would you in vision an anarchy in the United States?

Read into how previous anarchist areas functioned, I imagine we can put some new modern context onto it.

I don't see how it could possibly work in a large industrialized society consisting of many divergent ethnic, racial, and economic groups..

I don't see how anything could work when you put it like that, it wasn't perfect, but you know..

But... ugh. The problem is, in any system you want to put in place, including 'anarchy', the result is someone has to enforce that system, negating Anarchy. You just can't get everyone to follow your system, no matter what system you have, without force. No matter what decentralized non-government system you want to enforce, there will always be those with the force to impose their system on Anarchy, which by definition, can't command a force to impose itself.

You can say the Paris commune didn't fail because of Anarchy, but in fact that is exactly why it failed. Every system you want, must be enforced. The commune couldn't enforce itself on the public, and so it failed. The military of the competing system, put down the commune.

The only time a socialized system can work, is when it isn't based on an anarchy system, and has a strong centralized government to enforce it, such as the Soviet Union.

Capitalism too, can't work without a strong central government to impose the rules of the system on the public.

So a non-centralized, 'communal' system can never exist. No matter how you try it, no matter what set of rules you put in place, without the power to enforce itself, someone else will gain that power and either take control of the system brutally, or brutally enforce their own system, and eliminate the communal system.

This is simply how it works. That's why when you say "what is real socialism" or "real communism", we point to Pol Pot, Maoism, Stalinism, Cuba, Venezuela, and the Soviet Union and so on. You say that isn't 'real' social/communism... but it in fact is. It is the system that socialism and communism unavoidably results in.

That's why you can't point to an example of your system that works. Because it doesn't. A few months of the Paris Commune, is not a success. It's a failure. As all of them are failures.

You keep cherry picking the paris commune. Tell me more about revolutionary Catalonia, the free ukraine territories..

But it's the same story. Exact same story. Nestor Makhno, placed his military officials into leadership positions, regardless of what the peasants thought. Mayors and other officials. They imposed forced conscription, executions, and so on. They had no elections by the 'workers'. All people in positions of power and authority were appointed by Nestor himself, and no consideration was given to anyone else.

Again, without force, you can't impose a system. The Makhnovists were no different. They brutalized the Mennonites, and Germans. They had an anti-semitic aspect as well.

And the only reason they existed at all, was only because of the war, and civil wars going on around them, weakened the forces that would overthrow them. The moment all that dust settled, they were quickly swallowed up.

Same thing dude. They called it Anarchist.... but in point of fact, it was just another Soviet style centralized government. That's the only way it survived as long as it did.

 

[Marxist]

Read into how previous anarchist areas functioned, I imagine we can put some new modern context onto it.

I don't see how it could possibly work in a large industrialized society consisting of many divergent ethnic, racial, and economic groups..

I don't see how anything could work when you put it like that, it wasn't perfect, but you know..

But... ugh. The problem is, in any system you want to put in place, including 'anarchy', the result is someone has to enforce that system, negating Anarchy. You just can't get everyone to follow your system, no matter what system you have, without force. No matter what decentralized non-government system you want to enforce, there will always be those with the force to impose their system on Anarchy, which by definition, can't command a force to impose itself.

You can say the Paris commune didn't fail because of Anarchy, but in fact that is exactly why it failed. Every system you want, must be enforced. The commune couldn't enforce itself on the public, and so it failed. The military of the competing system, put down the commune.

The only time a socialized system can work, is when it isn't based on an anarchy system, and has a strong centralized government to enforce it, such as the Soviet Union.

Capitalism too, can't work without a strong central government to impose the rules of the system on the public.

So a non-centralized, 'communal' system can never exist. No matter how you try it, no matter what set of rules you put in place, without the power to enforce itself, someone else will gain that power and either take control of the system brutally, or brutally enforce their own system, and eliminate the communal system.

This is simply how it works. That's why when you say "what is real socialism" or "real communism", we point to Pol Pot, Maoism, Stalinism, Cuba, Venezuela, and the Soviet Union and so on. You say that isn't 'real' social/communism... but it in fact is. It is the system that socialism and communism unavoidably results in.

That's why you can't point to an example of your system that works. Because it doesn't. A few months of the Paris Commune, is not a success. It's a failure. As all of them are failures.

You keep cherry picking the paris commune. Tell me more about revolutionary Catalonia, the free ukraine territories..

But it's the same story. Exact same story. Nestor Makhno, placed his military officials into leadership positions, regardless of what the peasants thought. Mayors and other officials. They imposed forced conscription, executions, and so on. They had no elections by the 'workers'. All people in positions of power and authority were appointed by Nestor himself, and no consideration was given to anyone else.

Again, without force, you can't impose a system. The Makhnovists were no different. They brutalized the Mennonites, and Germans. They had an anti-semitic aspect as well.

And the only reason they existed at all, was only because of the war, and civil wars going on around them, weakened the forces that would overthrow them. The moment all that dust settled, they were quickly swallowed up.

Same thing dude. They called it Anarchist.... but in point of fact, it was just another Soviet style centralized government. That's the only way it survived as long as it did.

Literal bullshit. All the military did was fight the war and defend the society, that was it. Forced conscription? Executions of who?

 

[Marxist]

Read into how previous anarchist areas functioned, I imagine we can put some new modern context onto it.

I don't see how it could possibly work in a large industrialized society consisting of many divergent ethnic, racial, and economic groups..

I don't see how anything could work when you put it like that, it wasn't perfect, but you know..

But... ugh. The problem is, in any system you want to put in place, including 'anarchy', the result is someone has to enforce that system, negating Anarchy. You just can't get everyone to follow your system, no matter what system you have, without force. No matter what decentralized non-government system you want to enforce, there will always be those with the force to impose their system on Anarchy, which by definition, can't command a force to impose itself.

You can say the Paris commune didn't fail because of Anarchy, but in fact that is exactly why it failed. Every system you want, must be enforced. The commune couldn't enforce itself on the public, and so it failed. The military of the competing system, put down the commune.

The only time a socialized system can work, is when it isn't based on an anarchy system, and has a strong centralized government to enforce it, such as the Soviet Union.

Capitalism too, can't work without a strong central government to impose the rules of the system on the public.

So a non-centralized, 'communal' system can never exist. No matter how you try it, no matter what set of rules you put in place, without the power to enforce itself, someone else will gain that power and either take control of the system brutally, or brutally enforce their own system, and eliminate the communal system.

This is simply how it works. That's why when you say "what is real socialism" or "real communism", we point to Pol Pot, Maoism, Stalinism, Cuba, Venezuela, and the Soviet Union and so on. You say that isn't 'real' social/communism... but it in fact is. It is the system that socialism and communism unavoidably results in.

That's why you can't point to an example of your system that works. Because it doesn't. A few months of the Paris Commune, is not a success. It's a failure. As all of them are failures.

You keep cherry picking the paris commune. Tell me more about revolutionary Catalonia, the free ukraine territories..

But it's the same story. Exact same story. Nestor Makhno, placed his military officials into leadership positions, regardless of what the peasants thought. Mayors and other officials. They imposed forced conscription, executions, and so on. They had no elections by the 'workers'. All people in positions of power and authority were appointed by Nestor himself, and no consideration was given to anyone else.

Again, without force, you can't impose a system. The Makhnovists were no different. They brutalized the Mennonites, and Germans. They had an anti-semitic aspect as well.

And the only reason they existed at all, was only because of the war, and civil wars going on around them, weakened the forces that would overthrow them. The moment all that dust settled, they were quickly swallowed up.

Same thing dude. They called it Anarchist.... but in point of fact, it was just another Soviet style centralized government. That's the only way it survived as long as it did.

Let's not forget that the bolsheviks are the ones making all these claims you put forth, and none are verified, the FUCKING BOLSHEVIKS. Are you a commie sympathizer now?

 

[Clementine]

Read it an weep gloom and doom conserverinos!

Dow Average and S&P 500 Hit New Highs
Stocks Notch Records as Beaten-Down Shares Mount a Rally

nvestors snapped up shares of companies large and small, driving major indexes to records and reviving beaten-down technology stocks.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 112.13 points, or 0.7%, to 16695.47, notching its second record finish in as many sessions and its third new high of 2014. The Dow notched 52 records in 2013.

The S&P 500 added 18.17 points, or 1%, to 1896.65, squeezing out its ninth record close of the year.

That along with a great April jobs report should really be making you folks cry.

It would be great if the economy was better. Even Hillary is saying the recovery stalled out.

I laugh when I see Dems cheer Wall Street people doing well. I guess now they embrace the trickle down economics since a Dem is sitting in office.

 

[boilermaker55]

Get in the game! I have always been in the game.
Get over yourself.

Engage in a debate? You understanding seems to be to perplexed for you to make a comment regarding what is being discussed.

Still won't take up the challenge of putting all your investment into a company and its equipment and not hire anyone to do the work!
See how much money you get on your investment.
You choose to justify your ideology on the poorest of poor countries ; and who knows where the photos were taken.
Put up or shut up! LOL

Dude people do what you say all the time.

My former employer, they had a picture of the dude with all the machines, building stuff by himself in his basement. He built the company with his own hands. He was worth millions before he hired the first employee.

Apple computer, HP, and dozens of other companies all started without employees, just the owners making it work.

I think it was Snapple, where the guy put literally all his money into the business, and actually lived out of his car, in the parking lot of his business.

People do what you say ALL THE FREAKIN TIME.

As soon as I can find it, there was a Hot Rod Magazine article, about a guy who bought all the equipment, and the building, and hand made hot rods. He molded the metal, and did all the work himself. He was a multi millionaire making custom coups. He hired.... NO ONE.

People do this all the time. You people are bat crazy.

I'll never forget the day I was working at this company, and one of the machines broke down. So this dude was there rolling around on the floor, in jeans and a t-shirt, flopping around with tools in the dirt. And one of the guys walked up and said.... "that's him". I was standing there, thinking that's who? The new maintenance crew? The guy looked at me... no he's the owner and CEO. He signs your pay check. He owns this whole place.

I was shocked.... there he was with grimy tools, cranking on a machine. Turns out he installed all the machines himself, and before he had employees, he setup the machines, ran the machines, and repaired the machines all himself. So when they broke down, he just put on some old jeans, grabbed his tools, and fixed them.

He could run the WHOLE FREAKIN PLACE, without an employee. But that doesn't work with your socialist myth that "they can't earn anything without us, and they don't do anything".

But you are wrong. You are ignorant, and foolish.

Keep cherry picking and ignoring that once companies are founded, this stops happening in those companies.

Ahh..The lib playbook.....Instead of engaging the debate, you find yourself unable to rebut, you accuse the OP of cherry picking......Typical.

You should have stopped at "seems".....
Look, stop sitting on the sidelines rooting for the losing team. Get in the game.
So far all I've seen from you are drive by one liners.

 

[Andylusion]

I don't see how it could possibly work in a large industrialized society consisting of many divergent ethnic, racial, and economic groups..

I don't see how anything could work when you put it like that, it wasn't perfect, but you know..

But... ugh. The problem is, in any system you want to put in place, including 'anarchy', the result is someone has to enforce that system, negating Anarchy. You just can't get everyone to follow your system, no matter what system you have, without force. No matter what decentralized non-government system you want to enforce, there will always be those with the force to impose their system on Anarchy, which by definition, can't command a force to impose itself.

You can say the Paris commune didn't fail because of Anarchy, but in fact that is exactly why it failed. Every system you want, must be enforced. The commune couldn't enforce itself on the public, and so it failed. The military of the competing system, put down the commune.

The only time a socialized system can work, is when it isn't based on an anarchy system, and has a strong centralized government to enforce it, such as the Soviet Union.

Capitalism too, can't work without a strong central government to impose the rules of the system on the public.

So a non-centralized, 'communal' system can never exist. No matter how you try it, no matter what set of rules you put in place, without the power to enforce itself, someone else will gain that power and either take control of the system brutally, or brutally enforce their own system, and eliminate the communal system.

This is simply how it works. That's why when you say "what is real socialism" or "real communism", we point to Pol Pot, Maoism, Stalinism, Cuba, Venezuela, and the Soviet Union and so on. You say that isn't 'real' social/communism... but it in fact is. It is the system that socialism and communism unavoidably results in.

That's why you can't point to an example of your system that works. Because it doesn't. A few months of the Paris Commune, is not a success. It's a failure. As all of them are failures.

You keep cherry picking the paris commune. Tell me more about revolutionary Catalonia, the free ukraine territories..

But it's the same story. Exact same story. Nestor Makhno, placed his military officials into leadership positions, regardless of what the peasants thought. Mayors and other officials. They imposed forced conscription, executions, and so on. They had no elections by the 'workers'. All people in positions of power and authority were appointed by Nestor himself, and no consideration was given to anyone else.

Again, without force, you can't impose a system. The Makhnovists were no different. They brutalized the Mennonites, and Germans. They had an anti-semitic aspect as well.

And the only reason they existed at all, was only because of the war, and civil wars going on around them, weakened the forces that would overthrow them. The moment all that dust settled, they were quickly swallowed up.

Same thing dude. They called it Anarchist.... but in point of fact, it was just another Soviet style centralized government. That's the only way it survived as long as it did.

Let's not forget that the bolsheviks are the ones making all these claims you put forth, and none are verified, the FUCKING BOLSHEVIKS. Are you a commie sympathizer now?

The German and Mennonites also verified those claims, according to what I've read. And given they lived under the black army, that would seem to give some credibility. You disagree?

 

[Marxist]

I don't see how anything could work when you put it like that, it wasn't perfect, but you know..

But... ugh. The problem is, in any system you want to put in place, including 'anarchy', the result is someone has to enforce that system, negating Anarchy. You just can't get everyone to follow your system, no matter what system you have, without force. No matter what decentralized non-government system you want to enforce, there will always be those with the force to impose their system on Anarchy, which by definition, can't command a force to impose itself.

You can say the Paris commune didn't fail because of Anarchy, but in fact that is exactly why it failed. Every system you want, must be enforced. The commune couldn't enforce itself on the public, and so it failed. The military of the competing system, put down the commune.

The only time a socialized system can work, is when it isn't based on an anarchy system, and has a strong centralized government to enforce it, such as the Soviet Union.

Capitalism too, can't work without a strong central government to impose the rules of the system on the public.

So a non-centralized, 'communal' system can never exist. No matter how you try it, no matter what set of rules you put in place, without the power to enforce itself, someone else will gain that power and either take control of the system brutally, or brutally enforce their own system, and eliminate the communal system.

This is simply how it works. That's why when you say "what is real socialism" or "real communism", we point to Pol Pot, Maoism, Stalinism, Cuba, Venezuela, and the Soviet Union and so on. You say that isn't 'real' social/communism... but it in fact is. It is the system that socialism and communism unavoidably results in.

That's why you can't point to an example of your system that works. Because it doesn't. A few months of the Paris Commune, is not a success. It's a failure. As all of them are failures.

You keep cherry picking the paris commune. Tell me more about revolutionary Catalonia, the free ukraine territories..

But it's the same story. Exact same story. Nestor Makhno, placed his military officials into leadership positions, regardless of what the peasants thought. Mayors and other officials. They imposed forced conscription, executions, and so on. They had no elections by the 'workers'. All people in positions of power and authority were appointed by Nestor himself, and no consideration was given to anyone else.

Again, without force, you can't impose a system. The Makhnovists were no different. They brutalized the Mennonites, and Germans. They had an anti-semitic aspect as well.

And the only reason they existed at all, was only because of the war, and civil wars going on around them, weakened the forces that would overthrow them. The moment all that dust settled, they were quickly swallowed up.

Same thing dude. They called it Anarchist.... but in point of fact, it was just another Soviet style centralized government. That's the only way it survived as long as it did.

Let's not forget that the bolsheviks are the ones making all these claims you put forth, and none are verified, the FUCKING BOLSHEVIKS. Are you a commie sympathizer now?

The German and Mennonites also verified those claims, according to what I've read. And given they lived under the black army, that would seem to give some credibility. You disagree?

Show me where these claims are verified, It was not a centralized government, that is a fact.

 

[Flopper]

Yes, I've heard of the Paris commune. It ruled Paris for less than a month but as with all anarchy, it failed. Anarchy is not a form of government but rather the absence of it. In an anarchy there can't be one man more powerful than another because then that man and his disciples will eventually over time rise to a higher and higher power thus forming a monarchy or some other form of government. This is why anarchy is destined to fail.

18 March to 28 May 1871.

More then just the commune, and it didn't fail due to being anarchy.. It failed due to mass slaughter by the french armed forces, as with the other examples of anarchism. The free territory of ukraine? Killed and slaughtered. Of course it's the absence of it, but many anarchists have a democratic platform with worker cooperation, without the state. It's not destined to fail, you can say anything you want, I don't think the people will allow that to happen.

How would you in vision an anarchy in the United States?

Read into how previous anarchist areas functioned, I imagine we can put some new modern context onto it.

I don't see how it could possibly work in a large industrialized society consisting of many divergent ethnic, racial, and economic groups..

I don't see how anything could work when you put it like that, it wasn't perfect, but you know..

Anarchism has the best chance of working in a small homogeneous state or community but in larger states with diverse populations, anarchy would make everything worse. In an anarchist society, no one has any basic human rights because there are no laws. The definition of murder, rape, theft, and every other crime becomes subjective as does any punishment. One community is free to act as it chooses without regard to how if effects other communities since there is no law or government to enforce it. The end result would be chaos and violence

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

In honor of the tactics of the left I bump thee.

 

[Valerie]

BUY BUY BUY!

 

[Meathead]

In honor of the tactics of the left I bump thee.

A just bump. Now go find some of Stat's Clinton-shoe-in threads for more irony!

 

[BluesLegend]

The Obama market melt down.

 

[Mac1958]

Finally the correction I've been waiting for.

We're starting to buy.
.

 

[g5000]

The Obama market melt down.

Really? That's why markets all over the worlds are dropping?

"Because Obama."

I guess it can't possibly have anything to do with China...

"I shit my pants this morning...because Obama."

"I got a flat tire on the way to work this morning...because Obama."

"The drive-thru screwed up my lunch order...because Obama."

"I got fired for surfing porn at work...because Obama."