[anarchist6]

looting, destroying property, violent assault on there enemies, war.
they are just statists with a circle-a. its possible to have an anarchist state if these clowns lead the revolution.

[Potemkin]

Any sort of temporarily successful anarchist revolution would either quickly revert to capitalist statism or would have to institute itself as a revolutionary state in order to consolidate the gains of the revolution, a self-defeating process for anarchists. This is one of the many reasons why anarchism sucks. Also, anarchists smell funny.

[Paradigm]

Any sort of temporarily successful anarchist revolution would either quickly revert to capitalist statism or would have to institute itself as a revolutionary state in order to consolidate the gains of the revolution, a self-defeating process for anarchists.

Funny how neither of those options sound like being sold out to the fascists by Stalin. But we all know how inconvenient history can be, especially for dirty commies.

[SecretSquirrel]

I don't smell funny... unless you dislike the smell of soap or deodorant

[Potemkin]

That's different; you're a right-wing anarchist, SS. Say what you like about libertards and anarcho-capitalists, at least, unlike left-wing anarchists, they tend to take regular showers.

[SecretSquirrel]

I still don't understand what makes me a "right"-winger anarchist in your mind since I differ with those you would call that on several very substantive issues where you would more likely attribute my stance to the "left" anarchists

The fact is that I'm simply a methodological individualist who believes in Kantian moral imperatives. Everything else derives directly from there. Nothing "right" or "left" there IMO. Those handles are meaningless

But yes I do shower regularly, if you have to know

[KlassWar]

A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists.

If an insurrection plans to overthrow and destroy the State at all, it must employ force to smash the state apparatus and the ruling class. Is that hard to grasp?

[Someone5]

Any sort of temporarily successful anarchist revolution would either quickly revert to capitalist statism

"Revert"? Interesting. Are you suggesting that capitalism is the basic form of social organization for human beings? Because capitalism itself seems like it needs a hell of a lot of protection by the state in order to continue to exist; merely overthrowing the state would be sufficient to break capitalism irreparably.

[Paradigm]

"Revert"? Interesting. Are you suggesting that capitalism is the basic form of social organization for human beings? Because capitalism itself seems like it needs a hell of a lot of protection by the state in order to continue to exist; merely overthrowing the state would be sufficient to break capitalism irreparably.

Indeed. As a Marxist, Potemkin should know as well as anyone that capitalism cannot maintain itself indefinitely. Socialism, whether of the statist or libertarian variety, cannot flourish until the contradictions of capitalism have played themselves out. I disagree, however, that merely overthrowing the state would be sufficient. Dual power is essential for creating a sustainable socialism of any kind.

[Someone5]

Indeed. As a Marxist, Potemkin should know as well as anyone that capitalism cannot maintain itself indefinitely. Socialism, whether of the statist or libertarian variety, cannot flourish until the contradictions of capitalism have played themselves out. I disagree, however, that merely overthrowing the state would be sufficient. Dual power is essential for creating a sustainable socialism of any kind.

Establishing socialism does require socialist institutions and organizations; however, if the goal is merely to irreparably destroy the capitalist system, dissolving the government would be adequate. Obviously a transition to socialism would require decades of social engineering and preparatory work at this point. But that's honestly to be expected--it took a very long time for the capitalists to build a system that worked, after all.

[Meta777]

Hey, are you two suggesting that the existence of capitalism by its very nature requires a sate in order to be sustainable?
Not that I disagree with that, but if that is the case, then where do you suppose anarcho-capitalists fit in to this discussion?

[Paradigm]

Hey, are you two suggesting that the existence of capitalism by its very nature requires a sate in order to be sustainable?

Yes. Capitalism requires private property, which requires a state apparatus to enforce. Even the existence of money, and therefore markets, has always required a system of taxation or tribute(and this applies just as much to gold and silver as it does to paper money).

Not that I disagree with that, but if that is the case, then where do you suppose anarcho-capitalists fit in to this discussion?

Over with Cleopatra in the state of "De Nile."

[Someone5]

Hey, are you two suggesting that the existence of capitalism by its very nature requires a sate in order to be sustainable?

Well, I certainly am suggesting exactly that. Even if people choose to call it something other than a state, like "Rights Management Agency" or something. Capitalism requires a central authority to grant, administer, arbitrate, and enforce property claims. That is the most basic function of a government, and it is one that no right-thinking capitalist can reasonably deny. Capitalism does not work unless people have a method of establishing property claims, and that requires a central authority acting in the capacity of a government. Even if there might be several competing governments operating within the same territory--which is really the only structural difference that anarcho-capitalists have proposed.

Not that I disagree with that, but if that is the case, then where do you suppose anarcho-capitalists fit in to this discussion?

I don't consider them anarchists; their perspective makes no sense. It rests on some very fundamental contradictions, like the idea that people can be free and subjected to property at the same time, or the idea that property can be administered without central organization.

[SecretSquirrel]

if you are not voluntaryist you are not anarchist

considering that many people who call themselves "anarchist" on this board and in real life are not only willing but even eager to spill blood in some gory revolution, it makes you wonder if they even understand what they claim to believe in.