96 replies to this topic

[NICKxSUTTON]

Steve, on 06 June 2009 - 05:32 PM, said:

And this is a problem?

Omfg, are you serious? You're actually defending this blatant act of warfare and imperialism? This is ridiculous. The USA has stuck its fucking nose in every country's business since the beginning of it's reign as a super power. The only this has done is create situations that later endanger the people of those countries, and the American response is to continue sticking its noise in the business of these countries? And you defend this?


Again, what is wrong with a collapse with this economy? The most intelligent thing Anti-Flag has ever said was "The economy is suffering, let it die." I can only take this section of your post to mean that you think there is nothing inherently wrong with capitalism.

i hope our economy goes wrong but i dont think the world is quite ready for anarchy yet

[Steve]

NICKxSUTTON, on 06 June 2009 - 05:42 PM, said:

i hope our economy goes wrong but i dont think the world is quite ready for anarchy yet

This is a bourgeois idea. And it's wrong. There have been multiple instances of actual anarchy in the last 100 years. The working class is very ready for anarchy.

[Punk Rock Geek]

Steve, on 06 June 2009 - 05:47 PM, said:

This is a bourgeois idea. And it's wrong. There have been multiple instances of actual anarchy in the last 100 years. The working class is very ready for anarchy.

I actually agree with him.  People on a small scale are ready for anarchy.  But not the entire world.

[NICKxSUTTON]

Punk Rock Geek, on 06 June 2009 - 05:50 PM, said:

I actually agree with him.  People on a small scale are ready for anarchy.  But not the entire world.

anarchy would mean no more technology (most likely) so without refigeration or heat alot of people will die. there will probably be riots alot of killing for food and clean water. so on a global scale anarchy would not go well but maybe like a community at a time until people can be co dependent on each other.

[SertraOD]

Punk Rock Geek, on 06 June 2009 - 05:50 PM, said:

I actually agree with him.  People on a small scale are ready for anarchy.  But not the entire world.

The entire world isn't ready for anything other than the status quo. All change happens progressively, even after revolution. The world will become ready as more people liberate themselves. Several small scale revolutions will add up.

So to not be an anarchist because "the world isn't ready for it" is absurd. To be an anarchist is to actively make the world ready for it.

[Punk Rock Geek]

NICKxSUTTON, on 06 June 2009 - 05:55 PM, said:

anarchy would mean no more technology (most likely) so without refigeration or heat alot of people will die. there will probably be riots alot of killing for food and clean water. so on a global scale anarchy would not go well but maybe like a community at a time until people can be co dependent on each other.

This I don't agree on at all.  World hunger is a product of capitalism.  There is enough food on this planet to easily sustain everyone.

[NICKxSUTTON]

also with everyone depending on theyre cell phones and cpu's and video games it doesnt seem like many people would want an anarchy

[Punk Rock Geek]

SertraOD, on 06 June 2009 - 05:55 PM, said:

The entire world isn't ready for anything other than the status quo. All change happens progressively, even after revolution. The world will become ready as more people liberate themselves. Several small scale revolutions will add up.

So to not be an anarchist because "the world isn't ready for it" is absurd. To be an anarchist is to actively make the world ready for it.

And I agree with you there.

[Gibby]

NICKxSUTTON, on 06 June 2009 - 05:57 PM, said:

also with everyone depending on theyre cell phones and cpu's and video games it doesnt seem like many people would want an anarchy

So are you actually an anarchist or what?

[Steve]

Punk Rock Geek, on 06 June 2009 - 05:50 PM, said:

I actually agree with him.  People on a small scale are ready for anarchy.  But not the entire world.

The problem I have with this is that it reeks of the whole "bringing fire to the savages" mentality. Not that I'm saying you mean it like that, but when I hear this said, that's usually what it means. I feel it's not giving people the credit they deserve.

[NICKxSUTTON]

Punk Rock Geek, on 06 June 2009 - 05:56 PM, said:

This I don't agree on at all.  World hunger is a product of capitalism.  There is enough food on this planet to easily sustain everyone.

yes as of now but with no more cattle ranches or big plants making food starvation would set in

[NICKxSUTTON]

and it says for every country to eat like americans do we would need 3.2 more worlds to feed them

[thecoalition]

I'm not really sure if anarchy would ever really work Im not shootin down your idea or anything NICKXSUTTON but I suppose no system of government has worked nor will ever work! every countries governments are going to fall one day especially the united states.

[Punk Rock Geek]

NICKxSUTTON, on 06 June 2009 - 05:59 PM, said:

yes as of now but with no more cattle ranches or big plants making food starvation would set in

That's not true.  Cattle ranches use up a lot more food than they produce.  Look up the diet of an average factory farmed cow.

[Gibby]

So, anyone else here support GM crops or is it just me?

[John]

PRG since you're surfing this thread can you fix my title?

[NICKxSUTTON]

thecoalition, on 06 June 2009 - 06:03 PM, said:

I'm not really sure if anarchy would ever really work Im not shootin down your idea or anything NICKXSUTTON but I suppose no system of government has worked nor will ever work! every countries governments are going to fall one day especially the united states.

im not shure if that was pro anarchy or against it can you clarify for me

[Aidyn]

Punk Rock Geek, on 06 June 2009 - 05:56 PM, said:

This I don't agree on at all.  World hunger is a product of capitalism.  There is enough food on this planet to easily sustain everyone.

But there is no chance in hell that it would be more evenly distributed under anarchy than under capitalism.

[Steve]

NICKxSUTTON, on 06 June 2009 - 05:55 PM, said:

anarchy would mean no more technology (most likely) so without refigeration or heat alot of people will die. there will probably be riots alot of killing for food and clean water. so on a global scale anarchy would not go well but maybe like a community at a time until people can be co dependent on each other.

This is completely absurd. First of all, it's attributing technological advances (Which hasn't always made life easier) to capitalism, which is simply not true. Technological advances are the products of people wishing to progress. The wheel was created without any markets. The idea that without hierarchical structure or capitalism life would degrade entirely and we would run out of food/water is a lie that the bourgeoisie use to justify their power. We live in a post-scarcity society, and would have more than enough food,water,etc. for the world if we lived in a society that produces based on needs, rather than profits.

I'm not going to get mad at you, because it sounds like you don't really know a whole lot about anarchism.

[NICKxSUTTON]

Aidyn, on 06 June 2009 - 06:05 PM, said:

But there is no chance in hell that it would be more evenly distributed under anarchy than under capitalism.

exactly