Using basic terms incorrectly...

[richard_daily]

Right in the definition.



https://www.britannica.com/topic/anarchism

Guess what happens without government authority (anarchism)???

Hint: not egalitarianism or socialism....LMFAO.

That's right...I get to do whatever the fuck I want.

So again, explain to me how anarchism facilitates egalitarianism in any way shape form or fashion outside of a really good acid trip or willfully ignoring the reality of human greed and lust for power.

I've given you dozens of examples of what happens. I've shown you where your own sources contradict you, even the one you just posted. You've shown me jack shit that backs up your position that anarchy is hierarchical, right wing, or capitalist. The definitions state that it's the absence of political authority that makes it anarchy. Guess what hierarchy is? It's authority.

 

[richard_daily]

Hierarchy:

:a division of angels
2 a :a ruling body of clergy organized into orders or ranks each subordinate to the one above it; especially :the bishops of a province or nation
b :church government by a hierarchy
3 :a body of persons in authority
4 :the classification of a group of people according to ability or to economic, social, or professional standing; also :the group so classified
5 :a graded or ranked series
a hierarchy of values

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hierarchy

 

[BotanyBoy]

I've given you dozens of examples of what happens.

No you haven't because it's all pretty much socialist mental masturbation.

Anarchy (no government authority, not egalitarianism) turns to free market capitalism and social darwinian hell practically instantly, guaranteed. Gangster and warlord paradise.

The definitions state that it's the absence of political authority that makes it anarchy.

That's right.

And in the real world what happens without political authority?

Hint: Nothing even REMOTELY close to egalitarianism.

 

[richard_daily]

No you haven't because it's all socialist mental masturbation and total failure to realize their socialist utopian idiocy.

Anarchy (no government authority) turns to a free market capitalism and social darwinian hell practically instantly, guaranteed.

Then it's no longer anarchy, by definition. Hierarchy is not anarchy, by definition.

And in the real world what happens without political authority?

Hint: Nothing even REMOTELY close to egalitarianism.

Ask the FAI, the CNT, John Brown, The IWW, Christiana, the WV coal wars, the 68 Paris student uprisings, the Mexican Revolution, the labor movement (the Haymarket Masacre), etc etc etc etc etc...

Those are all examples of real world egalitarian anarchism.

Now give me your right wing, hierarchical, capitalist anarchist examples.

Oh, that's right... there aren't any.

 

[Hypoxia]

Epistemology: a debate over whether the debaters exist, and if so, why?

This thread: a debate over whether words have meaning, and if so, why?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Then it's no longer anarchy, by definition. Hierarchy is not anarchy, by definition.

Wrong, government is not anarchy by definition.

Government is hierarchy, but not all hierarchy is government.

Those are all examples of real world egalitarian anarchism.

If they are egalitarian they are not anarchist.

You CANNOT have egalitarianism without government authority. That why every other bit of leftism centers around government authority.

Socialism, social justice, communism and anarchism.

One of these things is NOT like the others.....

One of these things does NOT belong...

Guess which one and why?

Now give me your right wing, hierarchical, capitalist anarchist examples.

Oh, that's right... there aren't any.

Except every lawless shit hole on the planet as a glaring example of real world anarchism and not the socialist mental masturbation you keep citing as if that somehow negates the definition of the term.

 

[richard_daily]

If they are egalitarian they are not anarchist.

You CANNOT have egalitarianism without government authority. That why every other bit of leftism centers around government authority.

Socialism, social justice, communism and anarchism.

One of these things is NOT like the others.....

One of these things does NOT belong...

Guess which one and why?

You're probably the only person on this board who believes this nonsense. Everyone else has common sense, a better understanding of history, and can read the sources that you choose to post, and come to the conclusion that you're wrong.

Every bit of egalitarianism does NOT center around government authority. Far from it. All of the examples I just gave you prove that. You're ignoring them, and don't have a thing to say about any of those examples, because they all prove you wrong, and anything that proves you wrong, you simply ignore... and there's a lot of things that prove you wrong.

Except every lawless shit hole on the planet as a glaring example of real world anarchism and not the socialist mental masturbation you keep citing as if that somehow negates the definition of the term.

Name one. Name a single right wing, hierarchical capitalist anarchist situation.

ONE.

Or is this "some places" similar to those "some people" who you can't name?

 

[BotanyBoy]

You're probably the only person on this board who believes this nonsense. Everyone else has common sense, a better understanding of history, and can read the sources that you choose to post, and come to the conclusion that you're wrong.

Keep telling yourself that LOL.

I'm sure everyone else clearly knows that anarchism is really socialism and love of government!!

Websters and Britannica don't know what's up....those idiots think anarchism is anti-government. buncha dummies.

Every bit of egalitarianism does NOT center around government authority.

BAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!! Keep telling yourself that joke it's a good one!

Far from it. All of the examples I just gave you prove that. You're ignoring them, and don't have a thing to say about any of those examples, because they all prove you wrong, and anything that proves you wrong, you simply ignore... and there's a lot of things that prove you wrong.

Socialist LARPing as anarchist doesn't prove that egalitarianism doesn't require government authority. Quite the opposite.

You can't show me a single example of any society coming even REMOTELY close to egalitarianism without some form of government authority. Much less one that had no government authority.

Name one. Name a single right wing, hierarchical capitalist anarchist situation.

ONE.

Or is this "some places" similar to those "some people" who you can't name?

About a dozen african shit holes, various regions of S. Asia and S. America.

Like I said, pick any shit hole without any effective government authority. There you will see that no government authority (anarchy) results in a lot of shit, and none if it is egalitarian or even close.

 

[richard_daily]

Keep telling yourself that LOL.

I'm sure everyone else clearly knows that anarchism is really socialism and love of government!!

Websters and Britannica don't know what's up....those idiots think anarchism is anti-government. buncha dummies.

I literally posted over a half dozen quotes from brinannica which showed you that you were wrong, but you refuse to accept them. That's simply your failure as a human.

About a dozen african shit holes, various regions of S. Asia and S. America.

Like I said, pick any shit hole without any effective government authority. There you will see that no government authority (anarchy) results in a lot of shit, and none if it is egalitarian or even close.

Name one. What one is a right wing, hierarchical, anarchist capitalist nation?

Name one.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I literally posted over a half dozen quotes from brinannica which showed you that you were wrong, but you refuse to accept them. That's simply your failure as a human.

No you didn't, you've shown me that many socialist and communist consider themselves anarchist.

Mostly because they are so stupid they think the government oppression they live under is capitalism.

Name one. What one is a right wing, hierarchical, anarchist capitalist nation?

Name one.

Sudan, Somalia, most of the Congo, most of Cambodia, most of Brazil, Colombia, fucking MEXICO. Shit there are places in M'erica that qualify.

Anywhere there is no effective government authority.

Definition of anarchy

1 a :absence of government
b :a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority the city's descent into anarchy
c :a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a :absence or denial of any authority or established order anarchy prevailed in the ghetto

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

Guess what? It's survival of the fittest.....not egalitarianism.

 

[richard_daily]

No you didn't, you've shown me that many socialist and communist consider themselves anarchist.

I have, even in the very sources that you've used to attempt to prove your point. Your simply refuse to read.

Sudan, Somalia, most of the Congo, most of Cambodia, most of Brazil, Colombia, fucking MEXICO. Shit there are places in M'erica that qualify.

Anywhere there is no effective government authority.

Definition of anarchy

1 a :absence of government
b :a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority the city's descent into anarchy
c :a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a :absence or denial of any authority or established order anarchy prevailed in the ghetto

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

Guess what? It's survival of the fittest.....not egalitarianism.

NONE of those are right wing, capitalist heirarchical anarchist states, in any way, shape , or form.

 

[phrodeau]

Hey BotanyBoy, if Webster's is a bunch of dummies, why are you quoting them?

 

[BotanyBoy]

I have, even in the very sources that you've used to attempt to prove your point. Your simply refuse to read.

I'm not the one claiming it's socialism and not anti-government.

NONE of those are right wing, capitalist heirarchical anarchist states, in any way, shape , or form.

That's because you think anarchy is socialism and egalitarianism instead of the absence of government authorities.

You need to go read the definition of anarchy.

Hey BotanyBoy, if Webster's is a bunch of dummies, why are you quoting them?

They aren't...I was making fun of Daily and his ignoring of websters and britannica in the desperate attempt to keep his delusion that anarchism isn't REALLY what the dictionary says it is but totally socialism and egalitarianism instead of an absence of government authority.

 

[Hypoxia]

Hey BotanyBoy, if Webster's is a bunch of dummies, why are you quoting them?

Isn't Websters run by a clique of socialist feminazi atheist propagandists secretly mind-controlled by invisible giant radioactive telepathic squids bent on subjugating humanity as sex slaves and a high-protein food source? I saw that on the net so it must be true.

 

[richard_daily]

They aren't...I was making fun of Daily and his ignoring of websters and britannica in the desperate attempt to keep his delusion that anarchism isn't REALLY what the dictionary says it is but totally socialism and egalitarianism instead of an absence of government authority.

Britanica states that Anarchism IS egalitarianism. I've showed you the quote. Would you like me to do it again?

Or will you just ignore it again?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Britanica states that Anarchism IS egalitarianism. I've showed you the quote. Would you like me to do it again?

Or will you just ignore it again?

Really? Because right there in the very first sentence it basically restates what all the dictionaries define anarchism as.

Anarchism, cluster of doctrines and attitudes centred on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/anarchism


Nowhere in there or in the dictionary does it say "Except for socialism and egalitarianism" which is a fucking laughable idea.

How in the fuck is promoting an absence of or the rejection of government authority egalitarian or promoting egalitarianism in any way shape form or fashion beyond being equally free from government authority?

I'm asking for YOUR argument, not for a link to proof there is yet another pinko fuckwad who is so delusional they really think social and economic equity will just magically happen if the government fucks off.

Now if you really want to go grab that Britannica citation from a commie crackpot who thinks the key to the communist utopia is getting rid of government, sure we can look at another one of those irrelevant citations.

Communist/socialist whackadoodles who LARP as anarchist don't make anarchism egalitarian.

Anarchism is anti-government, not egalitarian or socialist or communist.

If anything it's the exact opposite.

 

[richard_daily]

Really? Because right there in the very first sentence it basically restates what all the dictionaries define anarchism as.




https://www.britannica.com/topic/anarchism


Nowhere in there or in the dictionary does it say "Except for socialism and egalitarianism" which is a fucking laughable idea.

How in the fuck is promoting an absence of or the rejection of government authority egalitarian or promoting egalitarianism in any way shape form or fashion beyond being equally free from government authority?

I'm asking for YOUR argument, not for a link to proof there is yet another pinko fuckwad who is so delusional they really think social and economic equity will just magically happen if the government fucks off.

So which is it, are you asking for my argument, or for proof from your source that supports my argument?

I can happily provide you with either.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Really? Because right there in the very first sentence it basically restates what all the dictionaries define anarchism as.




https://www.britannica.com/topic/anarchism


Nowhere in there or in the dictionary does it say "Except for socialism and egalitarianism" which is a fucking laughable idea.

How in the fuck is promoting an absence of or the rejection of government authority egalitarian or promoting egalitarianism in any way shape form or fashion beyond being equally free from government authority?

I'm asking for YOUR argument, not for a link to proof there is yet another pinko fuckwad who is so delusional they really think social and economic equity will just magically happen if the government fucks off.

Now if you really want to go grab that Britannica citation from a commie crackpot who thinks the key to the communist utopia is getting rid of government, sure we can look at another one of those irrelevant citations.

Communist/socialist whackadoodles who LARP as anarchist don't make anarchism egalitarian.

Anarchism is anti-government, not egalitarian or socialist or communist.

If anything it's the exact opposite.

If you could get someone to read the rest of the article for you, beyond, just the first sentence you’d understand why.

Your choice, remain ignorant or not.

Woof!

 

[water505]

Britanica states that Anarchism IS egalitarianism. I've showed you the quote. Would you like me to do it again?

Or will you just ignore it again?

This from the clown he says incredibly stupid shit every day, and when someone challenges him he pretends it never happened.

 

[cowslinger64]

This from the clown he says incredibly stupid shit every day, and when someone challenges him he pretends it never happened.

Finally....admitting you have a problem is the first step Miles. You do that all the fuckin time.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So which is it, are you asking for my argument, or for proof from your source that supports my argument?

I can happily provide you with either.

You don't have any proof that supports your argument.

You have proof that there are a number of lefty whackadoodles who think the communist utopia will happen in the absence of government authority and that by default makes anarchism about egalitarianism instead of anti-government authority.

I'm asking for your argument as to how you think being against/rejecting government authority (anarchism) is in any way egalitarian or supportive/facilitation of egalitarianism?

 

[BotanyBoy]

If you could get someone to read the rest of the article for you, beyond, just the first sentence you’d understand why.

Your choice, remain ignorant or not.

Woof!

I've read the whole thing, both wiki and Britannica and even some others.

None of them contradict that quote or any of the common dictionary definitions.

And none of them lay out how anarchism is in any way shape or form supportive of or even facilitates egalitarianism.

They do list a bunch of communist and socialist who think it is and does!

But none of their bullshit explains how any better than you or Daily. They all just assume that people will willingly slave themselves to death for the utopian collective! LMFAO....sure

 

[richard_daily]

You don't have any proof that supports your argument.

You have proof that there are a number of lefty whackadoodles who think the communist utopia will happen in the absence of government authority and that by default makes anarchism about egalitarianism instead of anti-government authority.

I'm asking for your argument as to how you think being against/rejecting government authority (anarchism) is in any way egalitarian or supportive/facilitation of egalitarianism?

Sorry, but your own source shows that Anarchism is about egalitarianism.

The main themes.... were mutualism, federalism, and the power of the working classes to liberate themselves through organized economic action, an idea later known as “direct action.” By mutualism [it is meant]... the organization of society on an egalitarian basis.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/anarchism

No where in there does it espouse the "im gettin mine!" mentality that you try to pretend it is.

 

[richard_daily]

Here are a couple more... just for you BB...

Anarchism in the Americas

In the United States, a native and mainly nonviolent tradition of anarchism developed during the 19th century in the writings of Henry David Thoreau, Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, Joseph Labadie, and above all Benjamin Tucker. An early advocate of women’s suffrage, religious tolerance, and fair labour legislation, Tucker combined Warren’s ideas on labour egalitarianism with elements of Proudhon’s and Bakunin’s antistatism.

The central ideals of anarchism—freedom, equality, and mutual aid—have inspired writers and artists throughout history.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/anarchism/Anarchism-in-the-arts#toc224802

An anarchist sensibility, characterized by ridicule of politicians, police, landlords, and other figures of authority,

Ruh roh... sounds like they don't like capitalists...

Anarchist ideas emerged in a wider frame of reference beginning with the American Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s, which aimed to resist injustice through the tactic of civil disobedience. In the 1960s and ’70s a new radicalism took root among students and the left in general in the United States, Europe, and Japan, embracing a general criticism of “elitist” power structures and the materialist values of modern industrial societies—both capitalist and communist.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/anarchism/Anarchism-in-the-arts#toc224802

Oh... the left. Just what I've been saying to you.

Does it say anything about anarchism being "right wing" anywhere in here? Let me know if you find anything.

Does it say anything about anarchism being "i'm getting mine" warlord mentality?

No?

Can't find anything?

Have you given up yet?


The problem, is that you're taking the ONE dictionary definition of "collapse of government" and assigning your own personal narrative to it, to encompass what circle A anarchism is. You fail to understand or see that anarchism is a political belief structure, and that it lays firmly on the left, and firmly opposed to capitalism and hierarchy.

I've clearly shown that to you, and if you can't see it, it's only because you refuse to open your eyes.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

I've read the whole thing, both wiki and Britannica and even some others.

None of them contradict that quote or any of the common dictionary definitions.

Then why don’t you understand it?

There is no dispute about the definition……the problems start when you go off on another one of your yeah but, look behind, look over, look under, look around the corner etc etc and manage to ignore everything to come to your “Capitalist Paradise" conclusion!

And none of them lay out how anarchism is in any way shape or form supportive of or even facilitates egalitarianism.

They do you just haven’t read it or understood it and are somehow ignoring the quotes both Daily and I have given and the wiki where it clearly says…..

Anarchism is usually considered an extreme left-wing ideology

And the reason why it is consider such is because all of early anarchist writing and a preponderance of writers of anarchist philosophy are definitely on the left of the political spectrum; being vehemently anti-capitalist and mostly pro-egalitarian.

In addition to this you also have to ignore the all real world attempts to establish anarchist communities based on these principles.

That is not to say there is not a branch of anarchism which could fit in to your “capitalist paradise”

Anarcho-capitalism advocates the elimination of the state in favour of self-ownership in a free market.[251][252] Anarcho-capitalism developed from radical anti-state libertarianism and individualist anarchism,[253][254][255][256][257][258][259][excessive citations] drawing from Austrian School economics, study of law and economics, and public choice theory.[260] There is a strong current within anarchism which believes that anarcho-capitalism cannot be considered a part of the anarchist movement, due to the fact that anarchism has historically been an anti-capitalist movement and for definitional reasons which see anarchism as incompatible with capitalist forms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

But none of their bullshit explains how any better than you or Daily. They all just assume that people will willingly slave themselves to death for the utopian collective! LMFAO....sure

They do, but, you have to read what they actually write rather than assume you know what they have written.

Woof!