Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Hey all!

As HoniSoit (and soon me too) is running a series on anarchism in the "21st Congress" blog, we would appreciate questions on this contentious and misunderstood topic in order to be able to address as many misconceptions or thought-out critiques of the subject as possible. As "What is anarchism?" is taking the form of almost an FAQ, we would appreciate it if you posted questions in here, to be incorporated in future instalments.

Why is anarchism so gay?

What prevents, in anarchy, the guy/group with the biggest stick rule?

Is anarchy compatible with gambling?

Why are anarchists all wild eyed losers?

If I raped House, what recourse would be taken, and by who?

Why is anarchism so gay?

Because gay is the new black.

Why are anarchists all wild eyed losers?

Amphetamines.

If I raped House, what recourse would be taken, and by who?

I think we might include that, in a rephrased manner. I am sure House won't object.

Zagadka wrote:If I raped House, what recourse would be taken

A gunshot to the back of the head, or maybe the groin.

Zagadka wrote:and by who?

By me.

Are you antichrists?

Only Johnny Rotten, but mainly because he likes Country Life.

Genuine question: How do you propose that the transformation to anarchy would occur? I've asked this a few times and only seem to be repudiated with claims that I'm being short sighted and not seeing the bigger picture but no true answers.

How do anarchists reconcile the failure of anarchist movements to avoid considerable splintering into minor factions with the ideas of a mass movement including the whole of the proletariat? How do anarchists hope to convince others, when they can't even convince themselves of the proper plan of attack? How does this failure of anarchist organizational structure in any way indicate anything but chaos should an anarchist movement achieve some shred of power? Most importantly, how can anarchists justify to themselves the abandonment of the working poor through the opposition to even minor victories, in the interest of satisfying their own ideological lust, where nothing less than total victory is worth the effort? Considering this apparent philosophy, what hope do anarchists have of ever becoming anything more than a minor movement comprised primarily of intoxicated youth who have grandiose ideas, but can't bear to give up their Macbook and other bourgeoisie possessions? Furthermore, given the inherent contradiction that the majority of modern anarchist support is derived from the very elements they seek to destroy, how does the anarchist movement reconcile its internal hypocrisy?

How would anarchists insure something like health care is something that all workers have access to?

Is there any sort of mechanism for weeding out inferior people in anarchy?

Dave wrote:Is there any sort of mechanism for weeding out inferior people in anarchy?

Yes, it's called liquidation of the capitalists as a class.

HoniSoit wrote:Yes, it's called liquidation of the capitalists as a class.

Most capitalists are actually superior people, so I would hope that your liquidation of that class would not also entail the liquidation of their mortality.

By the way, serious answer? I wasn't trolling, as I've heard there are forms of anarchy which encourage warfare (anarcho-primitivism, anarcho-statism).

The anarchists here are not primitivists but are anarcho-socialists/communists though.

Anyway, an anarchist ought to make a blog post about health care under anarchy some time soon.