It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
No it is not, I think you are very confusing on the definitions you are using. Communism supports the existence of state, anarchism does not
reply to post by Xaphan
PS: Have you seen the game RUST, I like to see people play it as it clearly expresses the problems of anarchy, establishing mutual beneficial alliances and the impact of rulers, most notably the server admins. (You can see videos of it on youtube)
reply to post by Panic2k11
You are using definitions that hijack the entire concept. Something more Rothbardian I'm guessing. Maybe you should read Bakunin, the 'father' of Anarchism.
Yeah, uhm, It seems to me like a lot of new technology that’s available now is kinda defeating the purpose of government. Government seems to be more obsolete by the day.
reply to post by Kali74
No it is not, I think you are very confusing on the definitions you are using. Communism supports the existence of state, anarchism does not (even if some form of organized order can emerge it will not execute all state functions, especially since a state is a complex legal construct) other more complex forms of anarchism can support larger communal property concepts even the establishment of legal systems and support for the concept of state, but at that point they cease to be anarchism per se.
as long as the state is not a rulership(monopoly of force/violence, monopoly on law making, monopoly on monetary policy) then its still anarchism.
I feel that I'm running in circles with you, I can't even see to be able to put myself into your view point on these subjects on the other hand I think I was clear enough that you could understand what I have stated, clearly defined and exemplified. My view is that we aren't sharing the same definitions but I'm using the more consensual views (that could even encompass many others but seemingly not yours). So I'm exiting this discussion thinking that the issue is with your view point (or the way you are attempting to describe it), not mine.
edit on 14-2-2014 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)