Noam Chomsky has all the answers

Discuss.

>>80

talking about Cuba and North Korea in a thread about Chomsky and Anarchy is semantics. it's really off-topic is what it is. you little conservatives are going to grow out of your stupidity one day

....maybe.

>>61
Anarchist type 1: TOTC-era Spainish, dudes in fight club
Anarchist type 2: American punk movement, "jolly rogers" of the world.

>>81

To this today I must admit respect for the thoroughness of liberal brainwashing. Conservatives are "stupid." Liberalism is truth.

>>83

i said "little" conservatives. implying a lack of education, understanding or knowledge. guys in conservatism think tanks don't argue Chomsky's ideas on Anarchy using Cuba and North Korea as talking points. sorry, it just doesn't happen.

and AGAIN with the liberal/conservative memes? listen, you can argue the merits, negatives and impossibilities of anarchy and chomsky all you want. but if you going to come in a debate on chomsky with the liberal vs conservative thing already in place you aren't arguing about chomsky or his ideals at all. I know you conservatives like to paint him as the champion of liberalism, because liberals MISTAKENLY do the same thing.

for all your collective potificating, you are both WRONG.

think tanks = illuminati

>>85

lol, i doubt that, but who knows? they appear to be much smarter than >>83, >>48 and co.

>>83
It looks seemless, but you can still walk up to it and poke holes in it. As many people on the thread have done. Of course the liberals just fill the holes with putty hope no one else notices.

I find each side (liberal and conservative) slinging insults at each other amusing. Everyone who agrees with them is their category, and everyone who doesn't is the other.

Hint: if you think like this, you're an idiot.

>>87

i said "little" conservatives. implying a lack of education, understanding or knowledge. guys in conservatism think tanks don't argue Chomsky's ideas on Anarchy using Cuba and North Korea as talking points. sorry, it just doesn't happen.

and AGAIN with the liberal/conservative memes? listen, you can argue the merits, negatives and impossibilities of anarchy and chomsky all you want. but if you going to come in a debate on chomsky with the liberal vs conservative thing already in place you aren't arguing about chomsky or his ideals at all. I know you conservatives like to paint him as the champion of liberalism, because liberals MISTAKENLY do the same thing.

for all your collective potificating, you are both WRONG.

>>89
I agree more with conservatives than liberals and I agree with their criticisms of each other except the completely paranoid ramblings. I'm not 100% either. I sort of agree with the libertarians, but not with them all either.

On the ol', economic freedom vs personal freedom graph I'm very close to reagan, but I disagree with a number of his policies and am more libertarian than conservative. liberal/conservative didn't spring up out of nowhere, they are classifications that simply cover whether people want things to stay the way they are or not and the fact that we live in a capitalist state where people with lots of money can get quite powerful means that conservatives happen to be capitalists. In soviet russia, the conservatives were the politburo and planned economists and the liberals were those who wanted to buy jeans, drink pepsi, own their own home and set up their own business etc etc..

They are malleable terms, but in the western culture we live in it is obvious what their qualities are. I generally rank ideas in 3 categories, the good, the bad and the ugly (stupid). I might start a thread on my ideas if I'm not so bored.

I'm going to tripfag this message so if anyone starts this topic and makes it sound really stupid you know it's not me

>>89
I agree more with conservatives than liberals and I agree with their criticisms of each other except the completely paranoid ramblings. I'm not 100% either. I sort of agree with the libertarians, but not with them all either.

On the ol', economic freedom vs personal freedom graph I'm very close to reagan, but I disagree with a number of his policies and am more libertarian than conservative. liberal/conservative didn't spring up out of nowhere, they are classifications that simply cover whether people want things to stay the way they are or not and the fact that we live in a capitalist state where people with lots of money can get quite powerful means that conservatives happen to be capitalists. In soviet russia, the conservatives were the politburo and planned economists and the liberals were those who wanted to buy jeans, drink pepsi, own their own home and set up their own business etc etc..

They are malleable terms, but in the western culture we live in it is obvious what their qualities are. I generally rank ideas in 3 categories, the good, the bad and the ugly (stupid). I might start a thread on my ideas if I'm not so bored.

I'm going to tripfag this message so if anyone starts this topic and makes it sound really stupid you know it's not me

oops..

>>90

All this shit you wrote is irrelevant. I Guess I'll have to take some of what I said in another tread and show you how it applies in every topic or debate you approach.

Identifying yourself as any percentage of either qualifies you for cult-member status. If you think that they are mutable terms and at the same it is "obvious what their qualities are". Then you must be very, very young or very, very ignorant of the history of the left/right meme.

Liberalism/Conservativism seperated can respectively stand for any myriad of ideas. Together however, it creates a culture bi-polarizing thought.
 
Human thought evolved away from singularities and we are now evolving away from bi-polarities. That being; reducing everything to a philosophical, psychological and political fork in the road so as to frame and control the entire argument.

In the end, you never address the real issue or the point brought up: [n]"Why Chomsky's ideas of anarchy can't be attacked via the talking points of Cuba, North Korea, Communism or Liberalism."[/n]

Instead (or should I say: Once again) we get sucked into a conservative vs liberal debate. How liberal you are, how conservative you are, what past presidents you identify with: All irrelevant. Argue the point. Show me why it's apt to argue Chomsky's ideas using Cuba and North Korea, as talking point.

It's like you can't help yourself- it's like you have zero control over your ability to reason.

>>93
My original point was that you enjoyed sucking on assholes and having your own penetrated by thick black mega cocks and you admitted this, so it is final, you are gay. I then went on to prove you are a nazi hitler, thus voiding this thread about 2 days ago.

>>94

What?

Listen, just take the loss gracefully. No need for superfluous ad hominem attacks. Don't be a little bitch.

Cool story, bro.

someone kill this nigger thread necromancer

>>29
Anarchy shares a lot with the final stage of Communism that
Marx envisioned

The goal of Marxism is stateless communism. No "Communist" party has ever reached, or even attempted to reach that goal. They always aimed for self-perpetuation. Compare Lenin's New Economic Policy and Stalinism. Only since Krushchev did the Party's iron grip on economic activity relax. But Trotsky argued that the only two feasible solutions are for the working class to overthrow the Party or for fat cats (like Gorbachev) to transition to capitalism so they can better enrich themselves (see China).

<with-digression
Can the working class liberate themselves? The only people who care about liberating them are petit-bourgeoise like Russian Anarchists during the Bolshevik Revolution, Spanish CNT-FAI during the Civil War, vanguardism deeply ingrained in Marxism, today's liberal faggots, etc. I'm not sure if they even have any contact with working-class people.
>

>>27

We're practicing anarchy right now [...] without coercion by authority.

When sheeple lack coercion, they start looting shit at random, even things they don't need. That's called "social order breaking down". Because a few enlightened people would not be a dick without coercion, that doesn't mean that sheeple (95% or more of any society) would. Sheeple would espouse anarchism only if it became the mainstream thing to do.

>>32
Explain why anarchy wouldn't succumb to a concentration of power.
>>44

Because anarchist societies are composed of anarchists, who are quite keen on tearing down any hierarchy if it ever occurs. But that is unworkable, see the last two sentences of the previous paragraph.

>>33

Our system is flawed in that the majority are ruled by a rich
minority.

Yes, that and minority making the majority believe that their goals are the majority's goals.

Once some general guidelines and rules for the soceity at
large are drawn up BY the soceity at large. Modern Anarchism > would be quite beneficial.

Anarchism will have its time. Look at the progress from ancient Greece (deference toward the able, strong), Christianity (compassion wasted upon ingrates as a moral code), finally today's market socialism (compassion wasted upon ingrates as law).

It's not far-fetched to say that mankind will be having world anarchism with no property rights in just a few hundred years, since things are going at such a pace. Surely, people do revolutions because of their short lifespans. What's the point of having anarchy in 500 years if they won't be able to see it?

Do you really think we should be always ruled by a rich
minority of people who don't have the majorities best
interests at heart?

Do you think that the proletariat should be told by petit-bourgeois such as Chomsky what are their interests? Then go looting shit when there's no state anymore. Chomsky says "that's not what I had in mind" while a prole says: "I got a new TV!".

>>42

Strawman. Anarchism isn't against organization. It's against hierarchy.

>>46
What system of organization do you use?

Leaderless resistance cell structure. See ALF or ELF. While there's no cascading failure, the problem is that their actions lack intensity.

What if the members or people they care about get sick and
they need someone to get them to hospital quickly if they
can't pay for a professional doctor's services immediately?
How will this issue be coverred?

Peer pressure.

>>50

Why is anarchy better than current sustems?

Because there's no hierarchy. Because there are no arbitrary laws. By the way, you need to define which flavor of anarchism is the "right" one.

(Left) Communism - Collectivism - Syndycalism - (Center) - Mutualism - (Right) Capitalism

Not sure if syndycalism is in the right place.

>>52

Yet you choose to adopt calling the resultant society "anarchy". It's like agreeing on the label "Darwinist" or something.

>>55 was written by a leftist.

>>57

He just got sick of straw men like "anarchists forming organizations lol how ironic".

>>74

here is no need to dismantle democracy

"Democracy" /= "representative democracy".

>>76

Because they're authoritarian statists.

>>82

Not every anarchist is a lifestylist. Maybe.

>>99
Why are you replying to posts from 2006?

>>100 because of chronic boredom

Cool story, bro.