[Aeon135]

Sheik Yurbooti, on 30 July 2010 - 03:47 PM, said:

I was thinking about pirate ships of the Spanish Main during the 18th Century. All due respect to the classic pirate movies, but they got it wrong. Most pirate ships were democratic micro-societies. The crew voted on where to go, what ships to attack, and they took shares of the booty. And yet, they still needed to elect a captain to focus their labors, and the captain got a larger share than the average crew member.

Aeon135:

Quote

I don't see a problem with that.

I'm sorry I can't take stand this anymore, almost all your criticisms don't apply to me! You don't know the first thing about my beliefs and almost nothing you've said regarding anarchism applies to anarchism. The same goes to almost everyone in these gods damn threads,
why do only Marxists apply good critcisms to anarchism?

I just wanted to note this as I've been growing increasingly frustrated with this, almost every criticism headed against me just doesn't apply.
it's like debating liberalism with a conservative and the conservative keeps telling that you, the liberal, wants government control of everything, and that all liberals are actually socialists.
Or when a conservative debates with a liberal and the liberal says that conservatives support corporate control of everything, but that's rarely true in the case of most conservatives.

So I'm going to take the wussy way out and simply not debate about anarchism anymore, because it's just making me dislike coming here, where I have to constantly parrot the same historical whatnots over and over, and every new thread it's like everyones contradicted amnesia and decide to point out, for the 5th time, that we need leaders to coordinate this and that. Yes! I agree!
or that we should use a free market to allocate stuff, yes! Thats not a bad idea either!
OR that anarchists wont be able to deal with criminals, though I think I've explained that anarchism could have courts many times, even police. Or..

God damnit..

Is amnesiac a real word?

[Gomi]

Aeon135, on 30 July 2010 - 10:51 PM, said:

Is amnesiac a real word?

Yes, a person with amnesia.

[chronosfirex2000]

Aeon135, on 30 July 2010 - 08:51 PM, said:

Sheik Yurbooti, on 30 July 2010 - 03:47 PM, said:

I was thinking about pirate ships of the Spanish Main during the 18th Century. All due respect to the classic pirate movies, but they got it wrong. Most pirate ships were democratic micro-societies. The crew voted on where to go, what ships to attack, and they took shares of the booty. And yet, they still needed to elect a captain to focus their labors, and the captain got a larger share than the average crew member.

Aeon135:

Quote

I don't see a problem with that.

I'm sorry I can't take stand this anymore, almost all your criticisms don't apply to me! You don't know the first thing about my beliefs and almost nothing you've said regarding anarchism applies to anarchism. The same goes to almost everyone in these gods damn threads,
why do only Marxists apply good critcisms to anarchism?

I just wanted to note this as I've been growing increasingly frustrated with this, almost every criticism headed against me just doesn't apply.
it's like debating liberalism with a conservative and the conservative keeps telling that you, the liberal, wants government control of everything, and that all liberals are actually socialists.
Or when a conservative debates with a liberal and the liberal says that conservatives support corporate control of everything, but that's rarely true in the case of most conservatives.

So I'm going to take the wussy way out and simply not debate about anarchism anymore, because it's just making me dislike coming here, where I have to constantly parrot the same historical whatnots over and over, and every new thread it's like everyones contradicted amnesia and decide to point out, for the 5th time, that we need leaders to coordinate this and that. Yes! I agree!
or that we should use a free market to allocate stuff, yes! Thats not a bad idea either!
OR that anarchists wont be able to deal with criminals, though I think I've explained that anarchism could have courts many times, even police. Or..

God damnit..

Is amnesiac a real word?

Aeon, I value your threads and posts concerning anarchism and economic theory. We don't get a lot of non liberal/conservative/centrists here so I welcome "radicals".

However, maybe it is you who has not expressed your opinions thoroughly enough and is causing confusion? Also the tone that you know all and are supreme to other posters concerning Marxism, anarchism and what have you also leaves a sour taste on other posters mouths. I am not suggesting X poster had read more info on such ideals but what I am suggesting is that you should expect other posters to question your beliefs and posts because your fingers are not the gospel on the subject.

For instance you had told me that A. Marx never advocated a transition state. Come on... this is basic Marxists knowledge. B. You also suggested that their was not any kind of anarchist "intelligentisa" opposed to Marxist theory during the Paris Communes and after circa 1848-1880s or so. This is also false.

Gomi, on 30 July 2010 - 09:02 PM, said:

Aeon135, on 30 July 2010 - 10:51 PM, said:

Is amnesiac a real word?

Yes, a person with amnesia.

Hah, that is ironic as I expressed to Aeon during PM that sometimes I can get loopy at night due to my consumption of prescribed Ambien for sleep. A drug that is known for it's amnesia.

[Aeon135]

Quote

You also suggested that their was not any kind of anarchist "intelligentisa" opposed to Marxist theory during the Paris Communes and after circa 1848-1880s or so. This is also false.

re-read that PM, I agreed with you. there was

Quote

Marx never advocated a transition state. Come on... this is basic Marxists knowledge.

He advocated a transition, he didnt advocate state use.

Quote

maybe it is you who has not expressed your opinions thoroughly enough and is causing confusion?

Please, must I write a book to have a debate? I've talked about it enough, I've written enough for an FAQ pamplet.
I'm not playing the blame game, I just don't find it intellectually stimulating to talk about the subject here anymore, I just don't enjoy it.
And I am here to enjoy myself first and foremost.
I'm sort if Im a bit snarky when it comes to marxism, and I am up on my high horse when it comes to marxism. It's mainly because I assume all you poor ol blleding heart liberals and mainstreaers don't know the first thing about it, which is, to be blunt, usually true.

This post has been edited by Aeon135: 30 July 2010 - 11:11 PM

[Second_AoJ]

Go debate a liberal. Don't leave.

This post has been edited by Second_AoJ: 04 August 2010 - 12:46 AM

[Mark]

Aeon135, on 30 July 2010 - 11:10 PM, said:

Quote

You also suggested that their was not any kind of anarchist "intelligentisa" opposed to Marxist theory during the Paris Communes and after circa 1848-1880s or so. This is also false.

re-read that PM, I agreed with you. there was

Quote

Marx never advocated a transition state. Come on... this is basic Marxists knowledge.

He advocated a transition, he didnt advocate state use.

Quote

maybe it is you who has not expressed your opinions thoroughly enough and is causing confusion?

Please, must I write a book to have a debate? I've talked about it enough, I've written enough for an FAQ pamplet.
I'm not playing the blame game, I just don't find it intellectually stimulating to talk about the subject here anymore, I just don't enjoy it.
And I am here to enjoy myself first and foremost.
I'm sort if Im a bit snarky when it comes to marxism, and I am up on my high horse when it comes to marxism. It's mainly because I assume all you poor ol blleding heart liberals and mainstreaers don't know the first thing about it, which is, to be blunt, usually true.

Well Aeon, I don't know jack shit about it. I'm not really into that kind of stuff. But, I value your presence here as well.

[Aeon135]

I never said I was leaving, who said that?