Profile
Search
Register
Log in
"Baby...I'm an anarchist, you're a spineless liberal...
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  

FoJaR:

historically, the anarchist movement has used the terms "libertarian socialism" and "libertarian communism" as alternate terms for their ideas.
This is just historical fact. You can agree or disagree with the effectivness of said terms, but I am by no means "wrong" in calling anarchism that.

By analogy, you can complain that "emo" is a stupid term for a music genre, because hey... all music is emotional. But that does not make someone "wrong" for using the term.


Quote:

"They built their telescope so only they could see
Painted it black and white so only they could see
Thieves Thieves Thieves
Put it in their pockets so no one else could see
Defined vision only they could see...
Thieves Thieves Thieves
So I use my slingshot to bury rocks
So I use my slingshot to bury rocks, deep in their eyes."
Post Mon Sep 01, 2003 11:29 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Dregs



Joined: 20 Aug 2002
Posts: 83
...  Reply with quote  

...

Herbs.

August sonned the shit out of everyone in this thread.









Period.
Post Tue Sep 02, 2003 2:57 am
 View user's profile Send private message
hugh grants hooker
Guest




Re: ...  Reply with quote  

Dregs wrote:

August sonned the shit out of everyone in this thread.
period.


haha
this seriously made me laugh out loud. seriously.

august posted the definiton of the word himself..
the meaning was contrary to what he'd been saying...
he kept switching terms... (which have differing meanings)

and yet... somehow... you say he 'sonned' us all? haha

no..
and to end it with "period"? laughable.
haha

no... haha
Post Tue Sep 02, 2003 3:14 am
 
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  

No I didn't.
Post Tue Sep 02, 2003 9:19 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

Wow.

Thoughts upon reading this thread:

#1. You can't use the textbook definition for everything, this is the nature of CONNOTATION - i.e. why the word CONNOTATION, which carries its own at times, even exists. For what there's no "connotation" for something, there is typically at least "implication" when words are used in paragraphs and not taken out of context. (Context is next lesson).

#2. Anarchism can be described LOOSELY as the terms August mentioned - but only for proof-of-concept.

#3. JY and August love to argue about semantics...doubly so with each other. Kinda like me and RandomSurge.

- Shane
Post Tue Sep 02, 2003 10:52 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
hugh grants hooker
Guest




 Reply with quote  

i cannot i agree with point #2 shane.

one term meant democracy and the other meant no rulers. the two cannot be interchanged like that. that clash pretty badly.
Post Tue Sep 02, 2003 10:58 am
 
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

johnny yuma wrote:
i cannot i agree with point #2 shane.

one term meant democracy and the other meant no rulers. the two cannot be interchanged like that. that clash pretty badly.


Right. Re-read #1 and get back to me. Heh.

- Shane
Post Tue Sep 02, 2003 11:13 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  

They dont' necessarily clash. A democracy (a DEMOCRACY not a republic) runs without rulers. The people collectivly vote on issues. There are no "rulers" in the sense of kings, dictators etc...


Quote:

#2. Anarchism can be described LOOSELY as the terms August mentioned


Agreed. I only meant it loosely, there are so many strains of Anarchist thought you can't get too specific with an overall definition.
Post Tue Sep 02, 2003 11:14 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
hugh grants hooker
Guest




 Reply with quote  

if really really do not see why you used the term anarchy(ism)(ist). it seems to me that you are wanting more of the 'democracy' style society than the anarchist one.

and as i said before, had you simply not kept using the term anachy/ist/ism i would not have stayed in this in anyway... because i have no feelings or cares about libertarian socialism or other things of the sort.

i still stand by the belief that they clash.
if there is a democracy with no kings, dictators, etc... then it still means the people are ruling themselves which isnt allowed for in an anarchist way of life.
Post Tue Sep 02, 2003 11:21 am
 
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

August Spies wrote:
They dont' necessarily clash. A democracy (a DEMOCRACY not a republic) runs without rulers. The people collectivly vote on issues. There are no "rulers" in the sense of kings, dictators etc...


Quote:

#2. Anarchism can be described LOOSELY as the terms August mentioned


Agreed. I only meant it loosely, there are so many strains of Anarchist thought you can't get too specific with an overall definition.


More accurately, anarchism by definition, lacks one.

It's a phenomenon by which people govern themselves instead of letting laws do it. Period. That can be manifested as "libertarian socialism" or whatever other words you want to put on it...but let's not ignore the ideas for the definitions here.


Last edited by MessiahCarey on Tue Sep 02, 2003 11:24 am; edited 1 time in total
Post Tue Sep 02, 2003 11:22 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
duke_city



Joined: 05 Jul 2002
Posts: 3208
Location: San Diego,CA
 Reply with quote  

This entire thread is ridiculous.

There only way to have this type of discussion is to define the parameters and vernacular of the topic initially then proceed from there.

Messageboards aren't supposed to be taken this seriously.

Brian
Post Tue Sep 02, 2003 11:23 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

dallasbboy wrote:

Messageboards aren't supposed to be taken this seriously.



But they could be, and used that way....so why not?

- Shane
Post Tue Sep 02, 2003 11:27 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

johnny yuma wrote:
the people are ruling themselves which isnt allowed for in an anarchist way of life.


Ummm..

That's EXACTLY the anarchist way of life.

People governing themselves. Situtations dealt with as they occur, not with a predefined set of stipulations and a meak attempt to fit the occurance with the stipulations in order to come out with a solution.

Anarchy could be democracy minus the laws.

- Shane
Post Tue Sep 02, 2003 11:31 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  


Quote:

There only way to have this type of discussion is to define the parameters and vernacular of the topic initially then proceed from there.

I agree somewhat. But to me if you are going to be talking about sometihng like "anarchists" then your vernacular is roughly laid out for you already. If you start talking about a different definition of anarchist then you aren't proving anything.

If I am talking about plane's as in flying machines and you keep talking about a two deminsional geometric thing, you are just derailing the discussion.
Post Tue Sep 02, 2003 11:32 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
hugh grants hooker
Guest




 Reply with quote  

just because the word implies a certain amount of 'freedom' does not mean you can take that kind of freedom with the defintion.

if that was true the term 'undefined' wouldnt have a meaning.

anarchy DOES have a specific definition. it can lead to other forms of society, but once it becomes that new form of society (ex libertarian socialism) then it is no longer anarchy. it can manifest itself as that, but rather INTO that.

they are both a specific style of governing, and both with set defintions, and both differ from each other.
Post Tue Sep 02, 2003 11:32 am
 

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:33 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon