VOTE YOUR NEW SECTION-ADMINS

...............................................................................................................................................anarchism is a socialist ideology

All votes for Black_Cross here.

EDIT: Also, mono is right. I can think of no Anarchist ideology that is not fundamentally Socialistic, even the Individualistic ones.

Liche wrote:

I thought your puppet told you to make it funny?

(LOL, YOU spying on ME?)

Which puppet? Ah, that's how you misguidingly call Black_Cross (yeah, the fact that we agree on several points makes him my puppet I guess... perhaps also that he's well liked and, surprisingly, also agrees with many others' points of view). In that case, I posted this before he requested me to "make it funny".

Liche wrote:

...I never was a "socialist" I was my own form of Anarchist, but Zealot made me leave the anarchist party, because only "Socialist forms" of anarchy are true. Even though there where forms of Anarchy far before Socialism...

Now that's funny... would you mind describing your "form of anarchy" that somehow is not socialistic?

Lets just be logical: socialism is a system in which the workers own the means of production and control them to suffice their needs. Anarchy is a system in which no one rules over anyone. Humans need means of production to suffice their needs even if we're talking about sharp stones and sticks to hunt and create fur coats. As per the definition of socialism workers own the means of production and control them to suffice their needs and in anarchy no one has any kind of power over anyone regardless of wether it is collectivist or not. Since humans need means of production and always create them, in anarchy, where no one rules over their peers each owns and controls the means of production meaning its socialistic.

So, how on Earth, if we're going to keep logical, can Anarchy not be socialistic? Also, socialism is a term coined to define a method of social organization. This method, this condition existed (and exists) at the same time as anarchy regardless of wether the the term was created centuries, millenia or eons after.

Mountains have existed for millions of years, just we didn't call them mountains always.

And now, how could someone who believes in social stratification call himself anarchist? Isn't that fairly contradictory? Also, you have proclaimed yourself as opportunistic. This combined with your lack of understanding on both socialism (anarchism incluced) makes one wonder why would have you been in the anarchist party in the first place....

Needless to say, I second mr. Internet and mono.

Would you guys talk this somewhere else instead of a vote thread?
Its going very off-topic so move those posts to a new thread.

Oh and I vote for Liche(3 votes).

CoolKidX wrote:

Would you guys talk this somewhere else instead of a vote thread?
Its going very off-topic so move those posts to a new thread.

They're not yet off topic CKX. We're talking about the traits of one of the candidates here.

But yes, indeed we shouldn't deepen on this.

Liche, if you plan to reply to my question, please open a thread about it.

All my 3 votes go to Black_Cross.

Anarcho Capitalism (which you claim is false simply because it dosent correspond with your form of anarchy) actually came a hundred years before Socialism. Capitalism = 1700s

Socialism was first written down after that, just because something similar to that occurred before, dosent mean its the same thing.

3 votes for lilith. Hourra !

Liche wrote:

Anarcho Capitalism (which you claim is false simply because it dosent correspond with your form of anarchy) actually came a hundred years before Socialism. Capitalism = 1700s

Socialism was first written down after that, just because something similar to that occurred before, dosent mean its the same thing.

That's not even a little bit true. "Anarcho"-Capitalism came from Murray Rothbard, an economist who was taught by Ludwig von Mises and headed the Austrian School for a while... and this all started in the 1950's, much later than Socialism - which I would argue also developed at around the same time as Capitalism, to be quite honest.

I think you may be conflating forms of market anarchy with "Anarcho"-Capitalism; even if you are, I'd arge that the market variants of Anarchism are still Socialistic in nature. "Anarcho"-Capitalism functions somewhat differently than market anarchism. Some market anarchists support abolishing private property in certain sectors, while retaining it in some. For An-Caps, everything is susceptible to market forces. Mutualism is an example of a free market ideology that opposes Capitalism; it believes that land and factories cannot be privatized, but that other services can be, whereas in Capitalism, this is, of course, quite different.

Capitalism came slightly before Socialism, this is true. But Anarchism finds its ideological roots in Socialism (specifically, I'd argue that it developed out of Enlightenment-era Liberalism - in a philosophical sense, not an economic sense - and French Socialism, meaning Socialism that developed due to the French Revolution of 1793.). This new trend in Anarchism, which is only a few decades young, bastardizes the long-standing tradition of what Anarchism genuinely stands for. It's kind of a post hoc fallacy that you're making here, and your argument is also anachronistic: just because Capitalism came first doesn't necessarily mean that "Anarcho"-Capitalism came before Socialism. It is quite young.

I may be against "Anarcho"-Capitalism for its own reasons, but it's intellectually dishonest to claim that "Anarcho"-Capitalism has been around as long as Capitalism, Socialism, and all of the other trends of Anarchism have been. It's just untrue. Untrue.

oks you prove me wrong

I thought the original Capitalism is kind of like Anarcho Capitalism, because the idea of no intervention.

It's me or the majority of BC's voters we're actually absent in the last 2-3 months and came back just in time to vote?

Jesus wrote:

It's me or the majority of BC's voters we're actually absent in the last 2-3 months and came back just in time to vote?

we came back because we realized we had a chance to change what we fought against.

I'll vote for Black Cross. (3 votes)

go post in that thread I made on "why you shouldn't vote for BC" one of its purposes where so the arguments could leave here, and it is waaay of topic considering, the sole purpose of this thread is to vote.

I vote for Liche, because he is my brother, and he told me to.

M4JOR_PAYN3 wrote:

I vote for Liche, because he is my brother, and he told me to.

gotta have a fifty post minimum to vote
shit luck kid.

Jesus wrote:

It's me or the majority of BC's voters we're actually absent in the last 2-3 months and came back just in time to vote?

2 isn't a majority.

M4JOR_PAYN3 wrote:

I vote for Liche, because he is my brother, and he told me to.

Haha. Oh, the irony is comin on strong.

Jesus wrote:

It's me or the majority of BC's voters we're actually absent in the last 2-3 months and came back just in time to vote?

is it me or are you a troll?

Just so its clear, there are 7 days 'til this vote is closed.

Where does it say the minium post requirements actually?

Kenzu wrote:

the other 2 winners choose 2 sections each. The candidate with most votes chooses first, the other one receives the other 2 automatically.

This can't happen, because there now only 3 active canidates, and after BC,Liche and lilith their's only Tyrlop and Zeronos who both have 3 vote's(from their selves) so that won't work.

And I think its ridiclious to make 3rd and 4th moderators, If someone's want to be moderator they make their own thread about it and not that the last 4 will get all powers, I get the first 2 will get (admin)powers but the other 2? That's dumb, especially when there only 3 active canidates.

Kenzu wrote:

The one with most votes will get moderation rights on 4 sections, the other 2 will get moderation rights on 2 sections each, the 4th candidate will remain "in reserve" and won't receive any power, unless one of the present supermods will loose his/her power because he/she broke a rule.

Don't there gonna be 2 admins?
Your like "The one with most votes.."

Quote :

Where does it say the minium post requirements actually?

It was voted on in legislation i believe.

Uh-oh... moderation or adminship?

i give every ote from eery of min aconts tor liche

i was gana vot for also tyrlop and jesus but sins they are laging behind in the balet counce,