Paradigm said:

rogue_pixie said:

It has ONE absolute, without that one absolute, anarchism couldn't work. Is it really that difficult!!!

---

It isn't that difficult, but you are. The one absolute in anarchism, which defines every anarchist ideology, is the absence of the state. Now, it's true that some anarchists such as Proudhoun or Tolstoy(I bet you don't even recognize these names) were against using violence to achieve this end. But others, such as Bakunin(often called one of the "fathers of anarchism") or Kropotkin(sometimes called the "anarchist prince") did believe revolutionary violence was justified in order to achieve freedom from the state.

---

kilgore_trout said:

was this the wrong thread?

---

rogue_pixie said:

zappaisgod said:

There's nothing like a good 15 minute hummer to foster tolerance and understanding amongst the hoi polloi

---

Do you ever have anything sensible to say?

---

rogue_pixie said:

I have heard of all of those anarchists thank-you-very-much.

If you were clever enough, you wouldn't rely on sources from other people, you would be able to conclude that the only way for anarchism to work is without violence as violence is taking away someone elses liberty which goes completely AGAINST the whole concept of anarchism, regardless of what these so called "anarchist" schools of thought may say.

---

zappaisgod said:

rogue_pixie said:

zappaisgod said:

There's nothing like a good 15 minute hummer to foster tolerance and understanding amongst the hoi polloi

---

Do you ever have anything sensible to say?

---

Do you?  Answer my question.  Are you free to punch me in the nose?

---

Sorry,

I try 

*cottons on*

umm.....yeah I would be free to do that if you were here...but I wouldn't want to.

Paradigm said:

rogue_pixie said:

I have heard of all of those anarchists thank-you-very-much.

If you were clever enough, you wouldn't rely on sources from other people, you would be able to conclude that the only way for anarchism to work is without violence as violence is taking away someone elses liberty which goes completely AGAINST the whole concept of anarchism, regardless of what these so called "anarchist" schools of thought may say.

---

Correction: they go completely against YOUR concept of anarchism, which has nothing to do with the common definition of anarchism. Words have meaning. Since you missed it last time, I direct your attention to the No True Scotsman fallacy, which you are committing. In fact, you're on a roll with the logical fallacies today. Keep it up and you might just commit every fallacy in the book. I think I might compile all the logical fallacies you've committed in this thread and bring it in to my Reasoning & Logic class for extra credit.

---

rogue_pixie said:

You are incredulous.

---

Paradigm said:

rogue_pixie said:

You are incredulous.

---

Yes, I am incredulous of the idea that your idea of what anarchism is should be taken as a more authoritative definition than either its common definition or the ideas of some of the earliest and most influential anarchist thinkers.

---

rogue_pixie said:

Other people's brains and common definitions are irrelevant to a true anarchist thinker. One day it might click. But it is looking doubtful.

---

Paradigm said:

rogue_pixie said:

Other people's brains and common definitions are irrelevant to a true anarchist thinker. One day it might click. But it is looking doubtful.

---

So you're saying that anarchists make words mean whatever it is they want it to mean, and then expect others to abide by their definition(as you were doing in this thread)?

---

rogue_pixie said:

Paradigm said:

rogue_pixie said:

Other people's brains and common definitions are irrelevant to a true anarchist thinker. One day it might click. But it is looking doubtful.

---

So you're saying that anarchists make words mean whatever it is they want it to mean, and then expect others to abide by their definition(as you were doing in this thread)?

---

Nope, try again.

---

rogue_pixie said:

Anarchism defines itself.

---

That's why I'm an anarchist and you aren't.  Cuz I said so.

Paradigm said:

rogue_pixie said:

Anarchism defines itself.

---

That's why I'm an anarchist and you aren't.  Cuz I said so.

---

rogue_pixie said:

You can't even begin to comprehend, my dear.

---

Quote:

& it really doesn't matter to me what you say.

---

rogue_pixie said:

Anarchism defines itself. Nitwit!

---

Paradigm said:

Ancalagon said:

Sorry for the two page late reply -- would you care to elucidate what the final outcome would look like (so there's no confusion)? Another thread might be more appropriate.

---

Communism is a classless society in which the means of production are owned by everyone in common(not by the state, as is the case with socialism). Work would be done not by being an employee for a company doing one type of work, as is the case under capitalism, but rather one could do several types of work through voluntary association. Marx believed that capitalism alienated the worker from his labor because the capitalists controlled the production. Under communism, he believed, people would be able to reach their "full human potential" by applying their many skills to many different tasks and recieving the full product of their labor.

---