Comrade fredy5

Greatings I am Mr.fredy5 or in real life sean gilmore of Ireland son of Eamon gilmore leader of the Irish labour party last socailist party with seats in the country and so I have been shown every flaw with conservitives. I am not a capatalist like my father and mother but an organised anerchist like my brother. Well I hope I find comrades on this forum and may peace follow unto you:)

velkominn to the forums.

Welcome to World Republic!

Enjoy your stay!

Shall I add you to the socialist party?

PS: I love V for Vendetta! Great movie!

Kenzu wrote:

Welcome to World Republic!

Shall I add you to the socialist party?

PS: I love V for Vendetta! Great movie!

warning none nutral administrator!!!!!!

Interesting, an anarchist I'll love to see how you fundament anarchism

Welcome

mattabesta wrote:

Kenzu wrote:

Welcome to World Republic!

Shall I add you to the socialist party?

PS: I love V for Vendetta! Great movie!

warning none nutral administrator!!!!!!

He's merely asking him wether he would like to Join the socialist party or not. Now, he said he's anarchist so, inspite of Kenzu's invitation (which has nothing to do with neutrality) he should be added to Anarchist party

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

Kenzu wrote:

Welcome to World Republic!

Shall I add you to the socialist party?

PS: I love V for Vendetta! Great movie!

warning none nutral administrator!!!!!!

He's merely asking him wether he would like to Join the socialist party or not. Now, he said he's anarchist so, inspite of Kenzu's invitation (which has nothing to do with neutrality) he should be added to Anarchist party

he's trying to add him to the left side!

Anarchists are actually considered left...

But now that we have an anarchist group he will be there. Let's hope it will grow strong!

Anarchists aren't left. Or right, they are against any kind of governments.
Anarchy=Without a Ruler

Voice of Reason wrote:

Anarchists aren't left. Or right, they are against any kind of governments.
Anarchy=Without a Ruler

He's right, the left-right political spectrum doesn't apply to anarchism and most libertarianism, although I would say anarchism resembles the left wing more than the right wing.

I personally believe anarchism invalidates itself. Anarchism supports the elimination of government, of a ruler, of rules so de facto everyone should rule themselves. Different groups of people with ideas compatible with each other would form and eventually organize in their own way. Oh wait... that's what we actually have in the world. So Anarchy is actually the natural stage in which all politic spectrums are built. Eventually comes a stronger group which dominates weak enough groups or which settles some sort of hegemony.

In an anarchy, perhaps, all groups would have to have equal power so that "no group ruled" and that would derivate probably in two blocs a deffensive and an offensive bloc, a bloc which gathers all the strengths of its members so that all the members can keep autonomous and another group that does all possible efforts to influde in the other groups. In search for peace, the deffensive bloc would have to influde in the agressive bloc to prevent it from being agressive, but that would go against a non-interventionist policy. I guess I have just basically described some sort of cold war....

So Anarchists would probably belong to a group that tries to defend the right of self-determination of groups thus asupporting the elimination of groups that search for domination... however... wouldn't the supression of "dominionists" imply having a dominion over them?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I personally believe anarchism invalidates itself. Anarchism supports the elimination of government, of a ruler, of rules so de facto everyone should rule themselves. Different groups of people with ideas compatible with each other would form and eventually organize in their own way. Oh wait... that's what we actually have in the world. So Anarchy is actually the natural stage in which all politic spectrums are built. Eventually comes a stronger group which dominates weak enough groups or which settles some sort of hegemony.

In an anarchy, perhaps, all groups would have to have equal power so that "no group ruled" and that would derivate probably in two blocs a deffensive and an offensive bloc, a bloc which gathers all the strengths of its members so that all the members can keep autonomous and another group that does all possible efforts to influde in the other groups. In search for peace, the deffensive bloc would have to influde in the agressive bloc to prevent it from being agressive, but that would go against a non-interventionist policy. I guess I have just basically described some sort of cold war....

So Anarchists would probably belong to a group that tries to defend the right of self-determination of groups thus asupporting the elimination of groups that search for domination... however... wouldn't the supression of "dominionists" imply having a dominion over them?

acracy reprisents idocracy and tribalism

hmm..how exactly does an "organized anarchy" work again?

Diogritor wrote:

hmm..how exactly does an "organized anarchy" work again?

The only possible way that an organized anarchy can work in my view is that all the groups of people respected each others self determination. And why do i talk of groups of people? Because we're social beings, because some of us have ideas compatible to others in terms of coexistance. In such a framework all the anarchists would be together in a single group and they would stablish what they consider anarchy... but for sure something would have to rule that anarchy

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Diogritor wrote:

hmm..how exactly does an "organized anarchy" work again?

The only possible way that an organized anarchy can work in my view is that all the groups of people respected each others self determination. And why do i talk of groups of people? Because we're social beings, because some of us have ideas compatible to others in terms of coexistance. In such a framework all the anarchists would be together in a single group and they would stablish what they consider anarchy... but for sure something would have to rule that anarchy

being socal beings is aecsacly what ancrasists protest.