[ingliz]

I dont believe council communism is anarchy and yes I am an individualist.You ,of course, have every right to define your 'isms' as you please.

[HoniSoit]

You might find Libertarianism subforum more in tune with your thinking tho.

Welcome.

[ingliz]

I like your style Honisant anybody who disagrees with you is a fascist

[HoniSoit]

Except that's not my style - unless libertarianism and fascism are the same now?

[Red Star]

Their uniforms are not good enough for fascism.

[HoniSoit]

What do they look like?

[ingliz]

I always thought libertarianism was a euphemism for those too sqeamish to come right out and call themselves neo-nazis.
If not enlighten me.

[HoniSoit]

I always thought libertarianism was a euphemism for those too sqeamish to come right out and call themselves neo-nazis.

Not at all. I never saw libertarianism as in any way associated with neo-Nazism.

I was only pointing out that there are more similarities between individualistic anarchism and libertarianism than with social anarchism, and that you might find your thinking more in line with those posting in the Libertarianism subforum on PoFo.

It's worth checking out if you are interested.

[Red Star]

What do they look like?

The Armani Blacksuits.

[HoniSoit]

The Chinese government seems to be blocking that image.

Is it subversive?

[Red Star]

Extremely.

[SpiderMonkey]

Ingliz, Libertarianism (as in the American usage, pro-capitalist anti-authoritarianism) is to Fascism as Marxism is to Stalinism.

Advocates of Libertarianism seem to honestly believe in human freedom, but only within the frame of a capitalist market. This inevitably causes cognitive dissonance when popular anti-capitalist movements appear - and thats when in practice libertarians end up aligned with neo-fascist regimes.

As with the Marxists, they argue that those who have gone before were not following the true path, and that if given another opportunity, Libertarianism can live up to its promises of freedom and meritocracy for all. Personally, I believe them no more than I believe the Marxists.

And Honisoit: I don't think that individualist anarchists are closer to libertarians at all - unless you subscribe to the libertarians definition of individualism as myopic self interest. True individualism is about being true to yourself, in action as well as thought, and that is actually hindered by a society that only significantly rewards one way of life (that of the entrepreneur).

[ingliz]

I am sorry I seem to be in the wrong forum. I've just done the Test.Shit! I'm a Marxist.I'll just go out I might be some time............

[frodge]

I've attended free parties (raves ect),which could be considered as autonomous.ie outside goverment or copoorate control.Although fairly large numbers are involved, it seems to work and there is no trouble as everyone is responible for each other, and everyone knows someone knows someone.

[Abood]

I'm sorry, but you cannot compare an anarchist commune to a rave.... as much as you love raves.

[SpiderMonkey]

I'm sorry, but you cannot compare an anarchist commune to a rave.... as much as you love raves.

Why not? Nobody is forced to go to a rave, they are social structures that arise through pure free association. How can an anarchist object?

[Abood]

The fact that raves are parties and anarchist communes aren't doesn't make a difference to you? Raves don't have an economy, or a political structure, or anything. They're just... raves!

[SpiderMonkey]

The fact that raves are parties and anarchist communes aren't doesn't make a difference to you? Raves don't have an economy, or a political structure, or anything. They're just... raves!

Politics and economics are merely models of human interaction, and raves are all about human interaction. If you want to propose alternatives to the current system you need to study how people organise and interact outside of that system.

[kummi90]

Back to the question at hand:

I think that it is not considered hierachial if I decide to KO the nutjob walking around with a baseball bat, looking for trouble. Im sure that if i decided to fight him, it would have been for the common good, and is therefore justified accordingly.

[SpiderMonkey]

Back to the question at hand:

I think that it is not considered hierachial if I decide to KO the nutjob walking around with a baseball bat, looking for trouble. Im sure that if i decided to fight him, it would have been for the common good, and is therefore justified accordingly.

What if you decided to shoot him? Who decides what level of force is necessary in such a time-critical situation?[/quote]