Just started going to church

[Agnapostate]

and what do you propose

Libertarian socialism. That adopts no specific form of socialism; its decentralized nature could encompass market socialism, participatory economics, etc. I personally favor the implementation of anarchist communism.

 

[JBeukema]

and what do you propose

Libertarian socialism

. That adopts no specific form of socialism;

So the system you propose is a non-system?

its decentralized nature could encompass market socialism, participatory economics, etc. I personally favor the implementation of anarchist communism.

'anarchist socialism' is an oxymoron

and you are simply a moron

 

[Agnapostate]

Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you of the school that incorrectly believes that "libertarian socialism" is an oxymoron? The term "libertarian" was first used by anarcho-socialists, actually.

So the system you propose is a non-system?

Uh...no.

I support the existence of horizontal federations of decentralized collectives and communes managed through direct democracy. The public ownership of the means of production would be the norm in all of them, but the specific variety of socialism implemented would be the decision of individual collectives, per libertarian principles.

'anarchist socialism' is an oxymoron

and you are simply a moron

All anarchists are socialists, moron.

Anarchism is necessarily anti-capitalist as an element of its anti-hierarchical nature, and traditionally opposed the "Unholy Trinity" of church, state, and capitalism. Now that the church has a largely reduced role in Western society, the primary focus of opposition is capitalism and the state. For example, as put by Peter Kropotkin in Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Principles:

Anarchism, the no-government system of socialism, has a double origin. It is an outgrowth of the two great movements of thought in the economic and the political fields which characterize the nineteenth century, and especially its second part. In common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear; and that all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by the producers of wealth. And in common with the most advanced representatives of political radicalism, they maintain that the ideal of the political organization of society is a condition of things where the functions of government are reduced to a minimum, and the individual recovers his full liberty of initiative and action for satisfying, by means of free groups and federations--freely constituted--all the infinitely varied needs of the human being.

Try not to be simultaneously arrogant and ignorant. It's the worst possible combination.

 

[AllieBaba]

Good for you, you joined a homo hating, women debassing religion of like minded navel gazers. Don't forget to bring your wallet!

Our Methodist church actually has a female pastor.

People feel at peace when they attend church because they are doing what they were made by God to do. People are happiest when they are faithful and praise and accept God, there's no way around it. And those who don't have it are spiteful, hateful, and mean about it.

Congrats on returning to church, Paulie. Don't worry about prayer...do it in private, in your own words. You don't have to believe for the Holy Spirit to work in you...you just have to invite him in.

 

[JBeukema]

I support the existence of horizontal federations of decentralized collectives and communes managed through direct democracy.

So, basically communism.

The public ownership of the means of production would be the norm in all of them, but the specific variety of socialism implemented would be the decision of individual collectives, per libertarian principles.

Wouldn't work. Communism can never work because there must be a committee that makes decisions or a public vote. The moment wither happens, you don't have communism: you have either an oligarchy or a Democracy with a nationalized/socialized economy. Both have always led to tyranny.

'anarchist socialism' is an oxymoron

and you are simply a moron

All anarchists are socialists, moron.

anarco-socialism is a term for morons who think they're revolutionaries. Communism is a form of government. Anarchy calls for the absence of government. They are mutually exclusive. All such loons really are are violent, deluded communists who support overthrow and destruction of capitalism and republicanism; in short, they are marxists.

Anarchism is necessarily anti-capitalist

No, it is inherently opposed to any large-scale enforcement of a hierarchical economic system by a legislative body or other governing force. The goal of all trade is to increase your subjective wealth and ;leave yourself better off. that is the very hear of capitalism in its purist form.

You're just another fool who thinks it's 'edgy' and 'cool' to support libertinism, pedophilia (per your record) and anarchy/chaos. You never grew up and you're trying to rebel against any rules or authority you can find, but you ultimately stand for no real cause.

as an element of its anti-hierarchical nature, and traditionally opposed the "Unholy Trinity" of church, state, and capitalism

.\

Case in point.

People feel at peace when they attend church because they are doing what they were made by God to do.

God wants them to attend false churches, worship the wrong deities, and beleive contradictory things?

 

[Agnapostate]

So, basically communism.

No, basically anarchism, with no necessary condition of communism. Try reading Section A.1 of An Anarchist FAQ if you're confused.

Wouldn't work.

I don't especially care for this pronouncement, since even aside from microeconomic analysis into the superior efficiency of worker-owner enterprises and labor cooperatives (which would be at the center of a libertarian socialist economy), there are indeed examples of the successful implementation of libertarian socialism that can be referred to. For example, I know for a fact that I've previously mentioned the Spanish Revolution, the anarchist social revolution that occurred during the Spanish Civil War that involved widespread collectivization, direct democracy, and workers' self-management. As noted by the anarchist historian Gaston Leval:

In Spain, during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties . . . this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was very quickly collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganised and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high-salaried managers, or the authority of the state.

I mention this example because it involves the most widespread implementation and because its elements upheld anarchist principles to the greatest extent, though others certainly exist. For example, we could also refer to Nestor Makhno and the Free Territory of Ukraine, the Paris Commune, the municipalities of Chiapas controlled by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, the Israeli kibbutzim, etc.

Communism can never work because there must be a committee that makes decisions or a public vote. The moment wither happens, you don't have communism: you have either an oligarchy or a Democracy with a nationalized/socialized economy. Both have always led to tyranny.

Incorrect. The nature of decentralization permits for broad policy creation in community assemblies and workers' councils, and policy administration through committees and other bodies created specifically for that purpose. Since all delegates to these bodies would be instantly recallable and not permitted to independently form policy, direct democracy is preserved.

anarco-socialism is a term for morons who think they're revolutionaries. Communism is a form of government. Anarchy calls for the absence of government. They are mutually exclusive. All such loons really are are violent, deluded communists who support overthrow and destruction of capitalism and republicanism; in short, they are marxists.

This is an assembly of moronic talking points that betrays a deep-seated ignorance of political theory and economy. Anarchism and Marxism are indeed both philosophies of a vibrant socialist political economy, but there is a critical and deep divergence that has existed between the two ever since the Hague Congress of the First International, when Mikhail Bakunin and his supporters were expelled by the machinations of Marx and Engels.

It's also the case that communism is not "a form of government"; that is likely a misconception that you have inherited from a misunderstanding of Soviet state capitalism. Communism as conventionally understood is a form of economic organization that involves the abolition of markets, money, and the state, and involves distribution of labor according to ability and goods and services according to need. After the failure to implement state socialism in the USSR and other similar nations, it's clear that the implementation of communism will actually require a minimal or absent government, so your assertions are inaccurate here also.

I understand that there are popular misconceptions that "anarchism" involves chaos or disorder and that "communism" involves a strong centralized state with a command economy, and I would be sympathetic were you ignorant but willing to learn, but your arrogant demeanor is all the more moronic in light of this ignorance.

No, it is inherently opposed to any large-scale enforcement of a hierarchical economic system by a legislative body or other governing force. The goal of all trade is to increase your subjective wealth and ;leave yourself better off. that is the very hear of capitalism in its purist form.

Capitalism involves an economic order far more expansive than mere trade or market exchange, and the market is not an element specific to capitalism; it's merely a device used for the allocation of resources that can exist in either a capitalist or socialist economy. Moreover, hierarchy can be manifested in institutions far more expansive than mere legislative bodies; it's the private ownership and control of the means of production that exists in a capitalist economy that constitutes the authoritarian element that anarchism opposes, as well as the various elements surrounding wage labor.

You're just another fool who thinks it's 'edgy' and 'cool' to support libertinism, pedophilia (per your record) and anarchy/chaos. You never grew up and you're trying to rebel against any rules or authority you can find, but you ultimately stand for no real cause.

This is utterly idiotic drivel. I've made almost no mention of libertinism on this forum, I've remarked numerous times that pedophilia is likely a neurodevelopmental disorder (and certainly a mental illness), and have otherwise merely elaborated on the fact that members here were using the term "pedophilia" in a manner that defied clinically accurate norms, which you posirepped me for.

You're too ignorant to realize it, but you've simply stereotyped yourself to a far greater extent than you could have ever stereotyped me. You've marked yourself as one of the many naive fools who is ignorant of political theory and believes that "anarchism" involves disorder or chaos and is only the realm of "young punks" or some other such imbecility.

 

[JBeukema]

So the system you propose is a non-system?

Uh...no. [/quote]

No, basically anarchism

Incorrect. The nature of decentralization permits for broad policy creation in community assemblies and workers' councils, and policy administration through committees and other bodies created specifically for that purpose.

The moment any such bodies are created, you're not talking about anarchy, you're talking about a forum of democracy

Since all delegates to these bodies would be instantly recallable and not permitted to independently form policy, direct democracy is preserved.

Direct democracy =/= anarchy. They are mutually exclusive. no matter how much propaganda you may read or parrot, the fact remains that anarchy requires a complete lack of government (a return to the natural state), and the system you propose is a specific form of a democratic type of government, greatly resembling a
confederation of independent Democracies. What you keep arguing for is a specific form of government; using 'anarchy' or 'anarcho-' to sound cool is merely a propaganda trick.

It's also the case that communism is not "a form of government"; that is likely a misconception that you have inherited from a misunderstanding of Soviet state capitalism

the soviet Union was a totalitarian system, a form of monarchy-oligarchy

Communism as conventionally understood is a form of economic organization that involves the abolition of markets, money, and the state, and involves distribution of labor according to ability
and goods and services according to need.

Who determines 'ability' and 'need'? This requires the creation of an oligarchic power system. Even if the machinations of the system are democratic in nature, there must exist an authority that can lead. this system sets up a situation ripe for tyranny and the rise of a strong hand to guide. It sets the stage for the emergence of a tyrant, usually through violent means. So long as the nature the the human 'heart' remains unchanged, this will forever doom any such system as your propose.

I understand that there are popular misconceptions that "anarchism" involves chaos or disorder

not 'involves', but oft leads to

and that "communism" involves a strong centralized state with a command economy,

that would be socialism. The easy way to remember is that in socialism 'society' controls everything and communism calls for independent 'communes'- as you said earlier

Capitalism involves an economic order far more expansive than mere trade or market exchange

If you adopt the Keynesian or similar models. Laisse-faire economics are perfectly in line with your system. A centralized authority can issue standardized currency that is more readily traded, so that I can use a standard item with set value to acquire goods more easily without trying ti either find someone who wants my apples and has furs, or arrange a complex series of trades for the desired goods. i can sell the apples at market value using the standard form of currency and use that to purchase the furs. While 'standardized' or common items of value will arise through social contract, a centralized authority (if prtoperly applied) lends greater stability to the system.

Moreover, hierarchy can be manifested in institutions far more expansive than mere legislative bodies; it's the private ownership and control of the means of production that exists in a capitalist economy

Any system, with private ownership will face that problem, while any system lacking itr emoves the motivation or incentive to succeed or bring progress. In a capitalist system, it pays to come up with new ideas, as one can better one's own position and acquire wealth through one's own labors. That incentive is greatly reduced, if not removed altogether in a collectivist system like the one you propose.

that constitutes the authoritarian element that anarchism opposes, as well as the various elements surrounding wage labor.

Your system is also authoritarian. It is victim to the tyranny of the masses and has no means to aptly protect the individual from the abuses or whims of the masses. The FF realized this; that is what they meant when they spoke of the 'tyranny of the majority' and why the rejected Democracy or any other such system as would allow for unrestricted mob rule

Anarchy, like Democracy is the pipedream of naive idealist minds who lack a basis in reality.

 

[Amanda]

Tomorrow will be my third week. I went a couple weeks when I was in basic training back in 2000, but that was mainly to get away from drill instructors for a few hours. Otherwise, I've never been.

I used to believe in a higher power when I was younger, and as I got older I questioned it like I question just about everything. I've been agnostic for probably the better part of my adult life (I'm almost 29).

I'm not looking for christ or anything, I'm just looking for something different. I have to say, I haven't felt this much at peace in a long time. I don't believe in a higher power the way a typical christian, jew, muslim, etc, does. I have my own beliefs. What church offers me is a fellowship, and something to keep myself accountable for during the week.

The church is United Methodist, which I really only chose because my late father was Methodist, and this somehow makes me feel like I'm re-acquainting with him in some way. It's protestant at least, which is a start. I wouldn't be caught dead attending anything catholic.

I think that's pretty cool. I go to a Baptist church but I'm not really 1 of them. I have my personal beliefs and I feel that God has affirmed them, I think everyone should think very critically about their beliefs because I don't think there's anything more important in this life than what you believe. But I also think pureness of heart and goodness of intention matter more than any labels.

 

[Agnapostate]

I go to a Baptist church but I'm not really 1 of them.

I hid. I still hide, actually. I might win the Bible Bee, and have to pretend I'm still born again while I do it.

 

[Agnapostate]

The moment any such bodies are created, you're not talking about anarchy, you're talking about a forum of democracy...Direct democracy =/= anarchy. They are mutually exclusive. no matter how much propaganda you may read or parrot, the fact remains that anarchy requires a complete lack of government (a return to the natural state), and the system you propose is a specific form of a democratic type of government, greatly resembling a confederation of independent Democracies. What you keep arguing for is a specific form of government; using 'anarchy' or 'anarcho-' to sound cool is merely a propaganda trick.

These comments merely indicate an ignorance of anarchist political theory. I'm fully aware that you've mistakenly embraced the all too common misconception that anarchism involves a rejection of social organization, or a creation of a chaotic or disorderly "law of the jungle." However, this assertion remains inaccurate nonetheless. Anarchism is based, as I previously noted, upon the establishment of horizontal federations of decentralized collectives and communes managed in a non-hierarchical and direct democratic manner. As put by L. Susan Brown:

While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation.

This definition of anarchism is consistent with that of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Errico Malatesta, Emma Goldman, and any other major anarchist thinker that comes to mind. Conversely, your own definition is merely spawned of a sadly commonplace misconception with no basis in reality. There is not a single anarchist theorist or commentator that you can refer to that would support the assertion that the establishment of "anarchy" in the political sense of the term involves chaos or disorder; even anarcho-primitivists will shy away from that lunacy. As put by Noam Chomsky:

t's like referring to Soviet-style bureaucracy as "socialism," or any other term of discourse that's been given a second meaning for the purpose of ideological warfare. I mean, "chaos" is a meaning of the word, but it's not a meaning that has any relevance to social thought. Anarchy as a social philosophy has never meant "chaos" --- in fact, anarchists have typically believed in a highly organized society, just one that's organized democratically from below.

Your misunderstanding is not utterly inexcusable. As Malatesta noted, "since it was thought that government was necessary and that without government there could only be disorder and confusion, it was natural and logical that anarchy, which means absence of government, should sound like absence of order." However, it's simply absurd for you to adopt an attitude of arrogance or superiority while simultaneously spewing the most utterly ignorant drivel about anarchist social and political theory and ignoring the contributions of thinkers that predated Marx in order to do it.

the soviet Union was a totalitarian system, a form of monarchy-oligarchy

It was totalitarian in nature. It was also based around state capitalism, since actual control of the means of production and related government functions were consolidated into the hands of a party elite rather than the soviets or any legitimately democratic body. This order thus imitated Western market capitalism, when similar elitist control is hoarded by the financial and coordinator classes, thus earning the title "state capitalist."

Who determines 'ability' and 'need'? This requires the creation of an oligarchic power system. Even if the machinations of the system are democratic in nature, there must exist an authority that can lead. this system sets up a situation ripe for tyranny and the rise of a strong hand to guide. It sets the stage for the emergence of a tyrant, usually through violent means. So long as the nature the the human 'heart' remains unchanged, this will forever doom any such system as your propose.

This is extremely low-brow criticism and nothing that I haven't encountered multiple times before. I never converse with anti-socialists about dynamic monopsony, or Barone's focus on Pareto optimality, or Burczak's elaboration on the post-Hayekian elements of socialism...it's always the dull and monotonous chanting about "human nature." Mutual need necessitates mutual aid, voluntary association and federation is a far less repressive state of affairs than a hierarchical centralized state, and anarchism has previously implemented democracy to a fuller extent than the capitalist republic ever could hope to. Abandon this crudity about an "oligarchic power system," and acknowledge the reality of the successful implementation of libertarian socialism in the past instead of continuing to repeat this idiocy without heeding the examples provided.

not 'involves', but oft leads to

This is similar drivel. There is no existing example of anarchism degenerating into chaotic disorder as a consequence of internal deficiency. Then again, you've already exhibited your disdain for empirical research in your comments here.

that would be socialism. The easy way to remember is that in socialism 'society' controls everything and communism calls for independent 'communes'- as you said earlier

Completely incorrect. Socialism involves the public ownership and management of the means of production, primarily manifested through workers' ownership and control of their respective industries. You're simply inaccurately describing Soviet state capitalism as "socialism," which is another sadly common error.

If you adopt the Keynesian or similar models. Laisse-faire economics are perfectly in line with your system. A centralized authority can issue standardized currency that is more readily traded, so that I can use a standard item with set value to acquire goods more easily without trying ti either find someone who wants my apples and has furs, or arrange a complex series of trades for the desired goods. i can sell the apples at market value using the standard form of currency and use that to purchase the furs. While 'standardized' or common items of value will arise through social contract, a centralized authority (if prtoperly applied) lends greater stability to the system.

This comment has no relevance to my own comment, though I don't doubt that your understanding of Keynesianism is as poor as your understanding of other economic ideology. Why not refer to Arrow's Impossibility Theorem while you're at it?

Any system, with private ownership will face that problem, while any system lacking itr emoves the motivation or incentive to succeed or bring progress. In a capitalist system, it pays to come up with new ideas, as one can better one's own position and acquire wealth through one's own labors. That incentive is greatly reduced, if not removed altogether in a collectivist system like the one you propose.

Both assertions are similarly inaccurate. Firstly, you've not noted capitalism's tradeoff between static and dynamic efficiency, similar to the tradeoff between internal and external efficiency necessitated by using equilibrium unemployment as a worker discipline device. For example, consider Jon Elster and Karl Ove Moene's explanation.

Two well-known examples of the trade-off between static and dynamic efficiency are the patent system and the role of the entrepreneur. The paradox of the patent system is that by slowing down the diffusion of knowledge it ensures that there is more knowledge to diffuse. The paradox of the entrepreneur stems from his identification with the firm (his role as the 'residual claimaint'). On the one hand, the intensity of his search for new methods and markets will be greater than that of a salaried manager; on the other hand, his criteria for accepting or rejecting the outcome of the search will be inefficient, because of his risk aversion.

We can derive the respective portions of that explanation from Joan Robinson's The Accumulation of Capital and Kenneth Arrow's Essays in the Theory of Risk-Bearing. Next, we can focus on the conflict between stimulus to innovation and the rapid spread of innovations, as noted by Robin Hahnel in In Defense of Democratic Planning:

Nor do I see why critics worry there would be insufficient incentives for enterprises to seek and implement innovations, unless they measure a participatory economy against a mythical and misleading image of capitalism. Sometimes it is presumed that innovating capitalist enterprises capture the full benefit of their successes, while it is also assumed that innovations spread instantaneously to all enterprises in an industry. When made explicit it is obvious that these assumptions are contradictory. Yet only if both assumptions hold can one conclude that capitalism provides maximum material stimulus to innovation and achieves technological efficiency throughout the economy. In reality innovatinve capitalist enterprises temporarily capture "super profits" which are competed away more or less rapidly depending on a host of circumstances, including patent laws and the efficacy of enforcement of intellectual property rights. This means that in reality there is a trade-off in capitalist economies between stimulus to innovation and the rapid spread of innovations, or a trade-off between dynamic and static efficiency.

Of course, you haven't made it clear whether your objection is based on an inaccurate misconception of socialism merely not maximizing dynamic efficiency and innovation, or whether it's based on a more expansive misconception that socialism does not involve appeal to self-interest or incentive whatsoever...

Your system is also authoritarian. It is victim to the tyranny of the masses and has no means to aptly protect the individual from the abuses or whims of the masses. The FF realized this; that is what they meant when they spoke of the 'tyranny of the majority' and why the rejected Democracy or any other such system as would allow for unrestricted mob rule

I haven't referred to "unrestricted mob rule." The nature of anarchism necessitates voluntary association, and individual liberty is thus at the heart of even the most militantly communist form of anarchism. Voluntary association through free and relatively unrestricted membership in various collectives and communes thus empowers this. Direct democracy cannot be compared to representative democracy in terms of the danger of a tyranny of the majority because direct democracy involves a greater degree of participatory input. While no one pretends that such a political system would achieve perfection, it is the case that "the evidence supports the arguments . . . that we do learn to participate by participating and that feelings of political efficacy are more likely to be developed in a participatory environment. Furthermore, the evidence indicates that experience of a participatory authority structure might also be effective in diminishing tendencies towards non-democratic attitudes in the individual," as put by Carole Pateman. It should be completely apparent how such an order prevents the unthinking conformity of the manner that you describe.

Anarchy, like Democracy is the pipedream of naive idealist minds who lack a basis in reality.

Totally wrong! As further noted by Leval, the Spanish anarchists "instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganisation of social life." And as put by Murray Bookchin:

In Spain, millions of people took large segments of the economy into their own hands, collectivised them, administered them, even abolished money and lived by communistic principles of work and distribution -- all of this in the midst of a terrible civil war, yet without producing the chaos or even the serious dislocations that were and still are predicted by authoritarian 'radicals.' Indeed, in many collectivised areas, the efficiency with which an enterprise worked by far exceeded that of a comparable one in nationalised or private sectors. This 'green shoot' of revolutionary reality has more meaning for us than the most persuasive theoretical arguments to the contrary. On this score it is not the anarchists who are the 'unrealistic day-dreamers,' but their opponents who have turned their backs to the facts or have shamelessly concealed them.

As far as I can tell, you fit that mold precisely.

 

[JBeukema]

fully aware that you've mistakenly embraced the all too common misconception that anarchism involves a rejection of social organization, or a creation of a chaotic or disorderly "law of the jungle." However, this assertion remains inaccurate nonetheless.

From Princeton:

Anarchism is based, as I previously noted, upon the establishment of horizontal federations o

f

S: (n) federation (the act of constituting a political unity out of a number of separate states or colonies or provinces so that each member retains the management of its internal affairs)

In other words, a form of government

You've already contradicted yourself

decentralized collectives and communes managed in a non-hierarchical and direct democratic manner.

Democracy is a form of government in which the supreme power is held completely by the people under a free electoral system. ...

" Mutual need necessitates mutual aid,

Or, more often, mutual competition between the self/we and the other, oft (if not usually) leading to abuses, tyranny, and persecution of the weaker party. That is why your fantasy has been rejected for the past six thousand years of recorded human history.

voluntary association and federation i

in other words, Democratic systems built upon Social Contract and the Consent of the Governed

a far less repressive state of affairs than a hierarchical centralized state

Translation:
'Are superior to tyrannical systems based upon military dominance, when judged by the level of liberty afforded the People'-
you're agreeing with the very ideology that calls for the Republic.

and anarchism has previously implemented democracy to a fuller extent than the capitalist republic ever could hope to

Democracy is mutually exclusive with Anarchism, as Democracy constitutes a form of (self-)government. You contradict yourself every time you spew your propaganda.

Abandon this crudity about an "oligarchic power system," and acknowledge the reality of the successful implementation of libertarian socialism in the past instead of continuing to repeat this idiocy without heeding the examples provided.

You cannot argue for a non-system of no government by citing examples of democratic government.

This is similar drivel. There is no existing example of anarchism degenerating into chaotic disorder as a consequence of internal deficiency.

Only because a failing nation falls only temporaily into chaos before a Strong hand emerges to form a tyrannical oligarchy ior the masses rally to form a democratic government, regardless of the form.

Then again, you've already exhibited your disdain for empirical research in your comments here.

Incorrect. It is you who has demonstrated you inability to reason or think beyond the propaganda and naive idealism you parrot.

inaccurately describing Soviet state capitalism as "socialism," which is another sadly common error.

I never described the Soviet system and socialism, I described it as totalitarianism and an oligarchy. Clearly, reading comprehension escapes you

The nature of anarchism necessitates voluntary association,

translation:
The consent of the governed from which all governmental systems derive their authority

and individual liberty is thus at the heart of even the most militantly communist form of anarchism.

Wrong. The social good is at the heart of such systems, and the individual is secondary to the collective- this holds true, too, of even the Republic, which demands the individual be obedient and sacrifice certain liberties, being subject to the social contract of the majority even if the individual does not wish to participate- unless that indfividual; rejects the benefits of society (renounces citizenship) and relocates outside of the territory of the State or to an otherwise designated area.

Voluntary association through free and relatively unrestricted membership in various collectives and communes thus empowers this. Direct democracy cannot be compared to representative democracy in terms of the danger of a tyranny of the majority because direct democracy involves a greater degree of participatory inpu

t

-and little to no means in place to restrict the will of the people and protect the individual. These are the very arguments that support the call for the republic (regardless of how this one in particular has turned out)

You need to learn to think about the real world and relaity instead of building pipedreams within your fantasies

 

[JBeukema]

Why does it take you so long to prepare statements and propaganda to which I can respond with refutation so readily on-the-fly?

 

[Agnapostate]

Why does it take you so long to prepare statements and propaganda to which I can respond with refutation so readily on-the-fly?

Because I actually reply with evidence and documentation. You reply with stupid inanities and one-liners that render your idiocy almost incomprehensible. You've also taken care to blatantly ignore a significant portion of my comments. For example, my commentary on the Spanish Revolution is an inconvenient reality for you, so it's not addressed.

 

[JBeukema]

You really do live in your own world, don't you?

 

[del]

Why does it take you so long to prepare statements and propaganda to which I can respond with refutation so readily on-the-fly?

Because I actually reply with evidence and documentation. You reply with stupid inanities and one-liners that render your idiocy almost incomprehensible. You've also taken care to blatantly ignore a significant portion of my comments. For example, my commentary on the Spanish Revolution is an inconvenient reality for you, so it's not addressed.

haven't we all, junior haven't we all?

 

[JBeukema]

I'm waiting for him to call for the abolishing of the ages of consent and majority

 

[Agnapostate]

we all, junior haven't we all?

You have. But as I said, that's because Barney Frank forgot to divert funding to the Hingham elementary schools, short round.