Hello

Pannekoek wrote:

Anarchism is a modern form of the old utopian socialism of More and Fourier.

you are kind of right but I think ancrasism is more about livin it your own way and the survival of the fiitest wich makes it knind of rightist

Anarchism is nothing because it is impossible, even theoretically, and makes no sense. They want to abolish the state without abolishing class antagonisms. Obviously the state is a way for one class to dominate another and so even if you tried to remove the state without removing classes the state would still exist. Anarchists are like Marxists who don't know what a state is.

Pannekoek wrote:

Anarchism is nothing because it is impossible, even theoretically, and makes no sense. They want to abolish the state without abolishing class antagonisms. Obviously the state is a way for one class to dominate another and so even if you tried to remove the state without removing classes the state would still exist. Anarchists are like Marxists who don't know what a state is.

ancraism aims to remove the sate and make pepole roam free( it's purest form I think)
with it there will be no real governance but classes will exist becuse those more fit to do what it takes to survive will become better off.

and why do you think the state is a thing for classes todominate anothere?

classe aren't races they are tempoary classafications of a persons wealth.

Quote :

classes will exist becuse those more fit to do what it takes to survive will become better off.

By classes I don't mean how rich someone is. Classe in the Marxist sense are determined by relationship to means of production. That means all workers are in the same class, even if some make $20,000 a year and some make $280,000.

Quote :

why do you think the state is a thing for classes todominate anothere

Because the definition of state is an instrument for one class to dominate another. The Marxist defintion at least.

Pannekoek wrote:

Quote :

classes will exist becuse those more fit to do what it takes to survive will become better off.

By classes I don't mean how rich someone is. Classe in the Marxist sense are determined by relationship to means of production. That means all workers are in the same class, even if some make $20,000 a year and some make $280,000.

Quote :

why do you think the state is a thing for classes todominate anothere

Because the definition of state is an instrument for one class to dominate another. The Marxist defintion at least.

ok so it is just like those who work in an office are one class and so on ?

anyone can become priminister of Iceland as long as he is 25 years old and his party's leader has chosen him to be pm.


it doen´t matter wich class his family was or is he can become powerfull.

mattabesta wrote:

Pannekoek wrote:

Quote :

classes will exist becuse those more fit to do what it takes to survive will become better off.

By classes I don't mean how rich someone is. Classe in the Marxist sense are determined by relationship to means of production. That means all workers are in the same class, even if some make $20,000 a year and some make $280,000.

Quote :

why do you think the state is a thing for classes todominate anothere

Because the definition of state is an instrument for one class to dominate another. The Marxist defintion at least.

ok so it is just like those who work in an office are one class and so on ?

anyone can become priminister of Iceland as long as he is 25 years old and his party's leader has chosen him to be pm.


it doen´t matter wich class his family was or is he can become powerfull.

So a party is going to put some poor guy as the leader of there party? thats not how things work

mononokifool wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

Pannekoek wrote:

Quote :

classes will exist becuse those more fit to do what it takes to survive will become better off.

By classes I don't mean how rich someone is. Classe in the Marxist sense are determined by relationship to means of production. That means all workers are in the same class, even if some make $20,000 a year and some make $280,000.

Quote :

why do you think the state is a thing for classes todominate anothere

Because the definition of state is an instrument for one class to dominate another. The Marxist defintion at least.

ok so it is just like those who work in an office are one class and so on ?

anyone can become priminister of Iceland as long as he is 25 years old and his party's leader has chosen him to be pm.


it doen´t matter wich class his family was or is he can become powerfull.

So a party is going to put some poor guy as the leader of there party? thats not how things work

if he has a good agenda then there is no reson why not.

Quote :

ok so it is just like those who work in an office are one class and so on ?

No, all the workers are one class and the capitalists are the other class. Only 2 classes.

Quote :

anyone can become priminister of Iceland as long as he is 25 years old and his party's leader has chosen him to be pm.

To be president you have to be rich enough to afford a very expensive campaign. And even if by some fluke you managed to become president you are a capitalist because the state owns part of the means of production.

Pannekoek wrote:

Quote :

ok so it is just like those who work in an office are one class and so on ?

No, all the workers are one class and the capitalists are the other class. Only 2 classes.

Quote :

anyone can become priminister of Iceland as long as he is 25 years old and his party's leader has chosen him to be pm.

To be president you have to be rich enough to afford a very expensive campaign. And even if by some fluke you managed to become president you are a capitalist because the state owns part of the means of production.

umm capitalists aren't a class there are tree classes low, mid, high.
in many cuntries partyes get state funding depending on members and they use them for a campain and if they get voted the biggest party chanses are they get into office and the leader wich can be anone becuse he is voted by the generlall assembely of the party wich is tottaly unrelated to money simply theyer agenda ot opinion and history.

Quote :

umm capitalists aren't a class there are tree classes low, mid, high.

You're funny. Classes in Marxism are defined as groups of people with a different relationship to the means of production (also known as private property). The capitalists own it and the workers do not.

Pannekoek wrote:

Quote :

umm capitalists aren't a class there are tree classes low, mid, high.

You're funny. Classes in Marxism are defined as groups of people with a different relationship to the means of production (also known as private property). The capitalists own it and the workers do not.

lolz you think the ownere dosen't do any thing???
being an owner of a companey is heayy shit man my dad owned one and I never saw him off the comp.

Quote :

lolz you think the ownere dosen't do any thing???

Your posts never have anything to do with what anyone says. I think you're doingit on purpose to get out of having to make a response. I never said the owner doesn't do anything. They are just in a different class. Working class and capitalist class are just labels, it doesn't mean the capitalists don't ever do work.

Pannekoek wrote:

Quote :

lolz you think the ownere dosen't do any thing???

Your posts never have anything to do with what anyone says. I think you're doingit on purpose to get out of having to make a response. I never said the owner doesn't do anything. They are just in a different class. Working class and capitalist class are just labels, it doesn't mean the capitalists don't ever do work.

so capital are executives and then workers are those who use manual labour?

capitalists are those who employ the workers

oligarch wrote:

Anarchism and utopian socialism are very differnet but welcome anyway.

No, the idea of anarchism is I would say very similiar to communism. No government, everything works...

There are some right wing anarchists, but these are few. Vast majority of Anarchists promote most of communist principles and have simliar goals.

Kenzu wrote:

oligarch wrote:

Anarchism and utopian socialism are very differnet but welcome anyway.

No, the idea of anarchism is I would say very similiar to communism. No government, everything works...

There are some right wing anarchists, but these are few. Vast majority of Anarchists promote most of communist principles and have simliar goals.

communism aims to unite pepole in sharing and the destuction of classes.
and ancarsism dose the same?

Yes, but anarchists try to establish communism immediately, while Marxists want socialism first, and then communism.

Pannekoek wrote:

Yes, but anarchists try to establish communism immediately, while Marxists want socialism first, and then communism.

then ancraism is logicly communism.

Others, such as anarcho-communists and post left anarchists prefer no solid form of organization

this is what you are talking about there are diffrent forms of ancrasism.

Quote :

then ancraism is logicly communism.

Yes, but not all kinds.

Pannekoek wrote:

Quote :

then ancraism is logicly communism.

Yes, but not all kinds.

wowhad a three line post and you didn't read it.

What are you talking about I did read it. The middle part was copy and pasted from wikipedia.

Pannekoek wrote:

What are you talking about I did read it. The middle part was copy and pasted from wikipedia.

yes and it states that ancro-communism is just one form of ancracy.

I know. I used to be an anarcho-communist. Other forms of anarchy are collectivist anarchism, anarcho-primitivism, mutualism, pareconism, agorism, anarchocapitalism, anarchafeminism, anarchosyndicalism, insurrectionary anarchism, voluntaryism, etc.

Pannekoek wrote:

I know. I used to be an anarcho-communist. Other forms of anarchy are collectivist anarchism, anarcho-primitivism, mutualism, pareconism, agorism, anarchocapitalism, anarchafeminism, anarchosyndicalism, insurrectionary anarchism, voluntaryism, etc.

so there are no dissaggrements?

no