Is this accurate?
>>24789755
No, anarchism is against the "State", in other words the ruling class, but against any and all forms of government.
Anarchism and socialism go hand-in-hand, despite what ancraps would tell you.
>>24789908
*but NOT against any and all forms of government.
People mistake failed states for anarchism all the time.
>>24789908
Absolutely absurd. Socialism still has government. Seriously?
>>24789908
>>24789925
it literally means being without a leader though aka no government
kill yourself
I'm all for a logically self-governing anarchy. It's sort of a new thing I just made up.
In otherwords, we won't be as dumb and illogical as tribesmen.
>>24789926
>>24789953
not all governments are the same, which is why OP's pic is silly.
>>24790008
No, you're redefining the words the way /you/ want. Their differences are clear and indisputable.
The government doesn't create things out of thin air.
So socialism is pretty retarded, it only works while you have enough people pulling the whole thing along. Since it gives way less incentives to be one of the guys pulling the cart you will eventually end up with less and less people participating.
>>24790027
>redefining
No, you are.
>>24790078
Yeah, but think of a more modernized socialism instead. Automate everything which can be automated, reduce working hours, and suddenly being a wageslave is less about being a slave and more about having a wage and the ability to enjoy life. Just a matter of whether the government will let multi-national corporations suck up more of the money or spit the resource across the board.
>>24790027
No..... I'm not. "the government" could be anything from a centuries-old monarchical ruling family to a theocracy to a representative democracy still ruled by the wealth elite to a loosely-affiliated series of tribal councils to a direct democracy.
Anarchism usually being part of the latter two.
>>24790078
Which is why people still have to work unless they're completely retarded or crippled, the difference is that they're paid a living wage.
>>24790171
I currently have 49000 euros saved up from working, I spend around 700 a month maybe and earn 4500 (before taxes). If socialism was gonna provide me with all that I'd drop out of the system and just do stuff I enjoy forever.
I'm probably not the only one who would do that. Wageslaves are even more likely to drop out as the income difference is not that great, but their work is easier to replace at least.
>>24790153
If I recall, I'm the one saying that it's a construct without a ruler controlling all members under one reign, you're the one saying
"not all governments are the same", implying that there is a central government uniting everyone under one reign, but not the same as the other ways of single governments which unite people.
>>24790224
Socialism isn't free money and blowjobs for everyone.
>>24790233
In other words, if there is chaos, it will be up to /you/ and the free choices you make to keep the unity, not the decision of one man dictating everyone and telling them what to do.
There is a huge, clear difference between socialism and anarchy. Because there are no restrictions, socialism would show itself as would any human interaction, but that is not to say that anarchy and socialism are the same. They are so different, I don't think you can imagine living in a world without a single government.
Socialism works fine in small groups. We need to clean house of shills and do further research on why it doesn't work with larger populations.
I remain an idealist, and of the opinion that the government and community must be invested in by the people, and the people aren't tools to be used by multinational companies. Can we at least rule out the shit that doesn't work before we try to come up with shit that does?
>>24790296
That was worded perfectly actually
>>24790322
>Socialism works fine in small groups. We need to clean house of shills and do further research on why it doesn't work with larger populations.
The same is true of representative democracy and capitalism.
>>24789755
The premise of socialism is that everyone's equal and are deserving of the same thing regardless of who you are, meaning that as long as you're born, you're entitled to welfare in a socialist society. It also recognizes that shit isn't equal right and now and socialists strive to rid society of a ruling class and a working class and have one big class where people live on equal terms. "The state" is everyone in this big class, meaning that everyone provides each other with education, healthcare, food, water, clothing and shelter for each other. There is also no concept of "mine" and "yours" in a classless socialist society, only "ours".
>>24790354
No actually, I forgot one mention one part. When I say socialism, I don't mean the political ideology. I mean social-ism: the quality of being social, interactive creatures.
>>24790357
Well I guess it's still a bad idea to assume that smaller groups = more manageable and effective systems even though this applies to classrooms, cooking, industrialized food production and most things.
>>24790322
>do further research on why it doesn't work with larger populations.
You can not have socialism without nationalism and a homogeneous ethnic base.
>>24790222
These are for you:
>>24790296
>>24790394
>>24790449
>homogeneous ethnic base
Let's ignore the reasoning for this and evaluate how we would even go about breeding ourselves like dogs to match the pictures in our books?
