I am an Anarchist. Not a "Libertarian" or a "Galtist" but an Anarchist.

[renie408]

106. Ok...

I read your links and watched some of the video.

Your initial premise is that I am an ignorant plebian because I do not believe that anarchy stands much of a chance in the real world. To back that premise up, you use a single reference to a situation in Spain which lasted for about three years during which the Spanish Revolution was fought. During that time, SOME of the workers of Spain in SOME provinces collectivized the economy and all its various functions in those areas. Basically they could do this because the people who wanted to run the country were busy killing each other to figure out who got to do that.

Let's pretend that I am not completely stupid. I know, you think I am an idiot. But for the sake of argument, let's just pretend that I am not. You offer THIS example of why anarchy can be a working model for society. But your example worked for 75% of three and a third provinces of Spain with the backdrop of a civil war that distracted the authoritarian types for three years. The minute the authoritarians got their shit figured out, it was back to "life sucks" for the Spanish worker. How many people do you think that represented, realistically? 75% of the population of three and a third provinces of Spain in 1936? I am getting all these numbers and statistics from the links you provided, BTW. Also, can you maybe acknowledge that this might have been a relative Utopia for these people? Given what they were coming out of and what they were going into, this little period when they got to get together and decide for themselves probably was GREAT.

What you have 'proven' is that anarchy can work in an isolated instance for a brief period of time for a limited number of people. I am not sure that has any global, real world implications. You called me ignorant (wait...not just ignorant, PROFOUNDLY ignorant) because I said "Good luck with that" to the OP after his statement that he wanted a leaderless, anarchist society....with a police force and a fire department and doctors and, like I said, probably garbage men. You always need garbage men. And then used this example as to defend your assumption that I am profoundly ignorant.

To me (maybe because of my profound ignorance) you have in no way proven your argument. Your only example didn't last. It worked for a brief period of time. It was not put to any global test. The people involved were basically in a bubble built by the surrounding revolution. Had I said "Good luck with that" to the Spanish workers of 1936, I would have been accurate. They needed luck and didn't have it. Francisco Franco eventually won and they got noticed again. You have brilliantly illustrated my argument that you are a sophist, arrogant douche, though, by repeatedly insulting my intelligence with zero initial provocation. You also tiptoed pretty daintily around the definition of 'anarchy'. There are seven accepted definitions from the source you provided upthread. Six basically mean "Oh shit!!" and one could have a less 'every man for himself' connotation. THAT is the one you chose to represent the word. I am no less correct, and more so given that it is the more popularly used variation, to assert that anarchy means chaotic lack of governance. But, you say toe-may-toe and I say toe-mah-toe.

I did watch part of the video and it was interesting (it's 3 am here and that thing could take the place of Ambien. I may go back and try to finish it later). It feels like propaganda, though. I would like to see or read something that gives a little broader view. This could have been an interesting little conversation if you were not so insecurely determined to establish your intellectual superiority. And were better at that.