Any Other Anarchists Here?

[Ryantology]

I suspect that all individualistic people will support whatever system best allows them to express their individuality. Anarchism is this system. They will of course all have different interests, fetishes, tastes & stuff, but anarchism is the only system that will allow them to express this.

You would also have to make all of them, 7.1 billion at present, accept that their individuality cannot infringe upon another's, apparently on the honor system since you're also abolishing any kind of apparatus that would guarantee protection for victims from the oppression of their stronger neighbors.

This idea is simply not compatible with reality and it honestly sounds like it would be a nightmare if it was. I really don't want to live in a world in which my primary concern in life is making sure everybody around me doesn't try to take whatever they want from me.

[EgoRaptor]

You are redefining communism as Stalinism. Communism is merely the absence of private ownership of the means of production. Marx also said socialism would dissolve the state leading to communism (which is stateless). Anarchism is very similar to Marxism, just less rigid.

Do you have any examples of a successful Communist society?

Well the anarchist communes during the Spanish Revolution didn't last long, but they did extremely well while they did.

[KUSA]

Do you have any examples of a successful Communist society?

Well the anarchist communes during the Spanish Revolution didn't last long, but they did extremely well while they did.

What happened to them?

[EgoRaptor]

Well the anarchist communes during the Spanish Revolution didn't last long, but they did extremely well while they did.

What happened to them?

They were wiped out by Franco & the fascists.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Does it include everyone's house?

Well, it does in various applications of communism.
The house too, belongs to the "people", and is given to the individual by the "people", meaning, the Communist party, who represents the will of the people.t

In that regard, you do not have to buy a house in a communist system, when you wish to move from one place to another, the house you vacate will be issues to someone else, and you'll be issued with a house in your new living area, full with furniture and etc.

Why would you want to abolish private property?

Well, the communists maintain that private property and the accumulation thereof is the reason for class-inequality.
So if property is all-public, there would be no such inequality.
However, this mostly isn't the case, as its easier said than done, as it also requires equal distribution.

This is the best post in this thread. I think anyone that loves freedom should have a spirit of anarchy. However you have to recognize that society would crumble if everyone adopted it as a life style.
I don't like being governed but it would suck if there were no government at all. We just need to manage the government we have and shape it into something that shows respect to everyone and is not overbearing.

Well, I love freedom, but my freedom does not respond to your type of extremely individualistic, morality and responsibility-free, type of freedom.
Anarchy is the epitome of individualism, and it goes against all basic forms of human behavior, such as collective behavior, and the establishment of social institutions to keep order.

And no, a government(or more precisely, a state) cannot show respect to everyone. States and governments are built on the collective gestalt of the people that form the basis of the state, and are regulated by the collective mentality, social and moral values of that people.
As such, a government cannot be respectful of anyone that trespasses those social and moral values, such as thieves, for example.
But in anarchy, the concept of thievery is ill-defined, as some anarchists do accept private property as to accept the deprivation therof as theft into their moral compass, while others do not believe in private property as to see private property as theft.

But most of important of all, since anarchists also do not recognize any form of established social and moral values based on collective thought, their concepts of morality and ethics are based on the individual, which in my opinion, invites violent chaos and animal-esque behavior.

Also, all nationalism boils down to is basically excessive pride and unquestioning support of one's own country. And though you say you detest nationalism, you seem to be advocating for a kind of nationalist attitude for this anarchist confederation. That the people in this confederation should believe in it so much that they will blindly conquer the world for it, and those that are conquered by it, should then passively submit to it.

I think you have a rather wrong idea about what nationalism is.
Its not having unquestioning support of one's own country, as a nation might not even have a country to call her own. There are many cases in today's world where nations exist without having their own country, but they still have nationalist sentiments.

Although pride and loyalty to one's own nation are indeed important concepts in nationalism, a more important concept is that nationalism actually encourages people to actively and consciously pursue the interests of one's nation, which is in my opinion, logical.

An anarchist cannot be a nationalist, because a "nation" is built upon a variety of parameters, which are first and foremost of all, a common culture, common language, and in many cases, common heritage and blood relations, and a shared collective consciousness based on these.
Anarchism on the other hand is highly individualistic. So it cannot be said that there can be a collective pursuit of anarchistic ideals, there can only be individualistic pursuits, which might or might not coincide with other anarchists.

It is not nationalism because the Anarchist Confederacy must span the world. Therefore it is the opposite if nationalism.

Excatly, internationalism.

They were wiped out by Franco & the fascists.

Naturally.

[EgoRaptor]

[quote='KUSA' pid='592519' dateline='1390872439']

They were wiped out by Franco & the fascists.

Naturally.

I actually have to agree with you here. They were weak, next time we must be strong. Before abolishing the state we must first use eugenics to breed a better man.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Naturally.

I actually have to agree with you here. They were weak, next time we must be strong. Before abolishing the state we must first use eugenics to breed a better man.

They were weak because they were disorganised and rather not well-supplied. And to be even more honest, they didn't have the support of the Spanish people. Have you ever seen a communist-leftist resurgence in any country that had the support of the majority? The most that they can do is to split the country in half.