nah, just your pitiful corner of it. it's not even true there, but hey.
Yet you fail to quote us any anarchical working societies, either existant now or in the past. Go ahead. We're waiting. In the real world. And, it's not even true here, where, in the US? Um, yeah, it is true here. We're not an anarchy, nor are there any states whose govt is. Are you tripping or something?
again, speak for yourself and the clowns you're dealing with. I'll say one thing though, what chomsky pointed out, "many who consider themselves left I would consider proto-fascist". I've seen the stupid, hypocritical underbelly of anarchos, sure -- but I've also seen just how easy and natural it can be. that it can literally be the absence of violence, coercion and lies, and nothing more. you say that's not viable? it surely is more viable than all alternatives combined.
Surely it isn't. it isn't viable in the sense that it does not occur. And would collapse if attempted. Is it 'viable' in a fantasy sense, where everyone cooperates? Sure. So is Communism and National Socialism; in the realm of imagination. However it does not exist nor is it possible, in practice. the only clown Im dealing with here is you.
oh, and speaking of chomsky, what about northern italy after ww2 -- self-organized by workers, the US preparing to attack if should the italians refuse to elect a government (because they seemed to get along fine without one, which scared them ******** haha)?
lol, that wasn't a 'function anarchy'. that was a constitutional switch between the reign of a monarch and the decision to become a Republic. I can't even find reference to it being a anarchist society anywhere. It would appear you are the only individual in the world calling it that. Im sure the Italians would be amused.
when I point it out, you cover your ears and go lalala.
It's amusing that you react to me reacting, before I've even read the post. that's so precious.
that doesn't mean anarchism doesn't work, it just means it's not for you, and you not for it. **** northern italy in the 40s, ponder the pedestrians at the red traffic light. or don't. but don't tell me about "the real world" as if that phrase was anything but compensation for arguments.
I am the only one presenting any arguments here. You're just spouting nonsense. You've cited no facts, just spouted emotive nothings. Got anything factual? Or are you just frothing up like anarchists do at rallies?
