Anarchy, again.

Smurf

As long as we have a state, yes. The state can not be 'phased out' it must be overthrown. So untill we do that it mine as well be taking care of people.

P.S. And the more inefficient it is (if you believe that) the quicker the state will be overthrown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_an...st_communities

My favourites are Christiania and Zapatismo.

The Smoking Man

Surely you jest ... China???
M'Kay ... remember where I am and the fact that of the three sites you posted I could view Zapatismo.

If you are trying to make a point ... you can't do it that way.

Smurf

A point? My point was to: "point out all the successful incidents or how [I] forsee it happening".

I'm waiting for you to poke holes in it. You're not going to do that too well if you're too lazy to look up the basics about christiania and zapatismo (or anything else on that list). It's not like they try and keep themselves secret.

The Smoking Man

Actually, what I am stating to you is that I am located in China and the sites are blocked except for the one.

One thing I can point out to you from the site I went to is that when you have people known as Comandanta, Subcomandante and has 'deligates', they certainly seem to have set up a revolutionary government with a heirarchy.

So how is this anarchy?

Are you saying a paramilitary, revolutionary, organization that failed in their intent and now survives in the wilderness smoking Pipes through balaclavas (ski masks) is in some way less reliant upon government when they clearly HAVE an internal structure that is even more imposing than the one they oppose.

Had they been successful and gained popular support, what would have been the outcome?

I notice the reference to Pancho Villa too.

So are you saying 'anarchy' is the result of a failed coup by communists?

So, the people comprising the NPA in the Philippines are really Anarchists and not people attempting to impost a military coup?

My mistake.

The Smoking Man

PS. And a good portion of the links on the page are dead by the way.

So 'No' I am not lazy.

Your consideration of my position and my enthuziasm for debate is misguided.

Smurf

Wikipedia is censored in China? My god, you poor people....

The Smoking Man

Not all of it.

When they upgraded the filters, they gave it the ability to filter at a finer level than the base URL.

Smurf

Sophisticated censorship. Must be difficult for them to keep track of all the websites they've blocked.

Can you read this?
http://www.chiapaslink.ukgateway.net/ch1.html

The Smoking Man

No, noe they can block on the basis of keywords.

Okay ... so you pointed out that Chiapas had problems like many places in the world.

So did The Philippines and they revolted in 1986 forcing Marcos to resign.

Now they have had a stream of 'presidents' over half of whom have been implicated in a variety of scandles and they have even allowed Imelda back in as a government representative.

Now, can you tell me what this has to do with anarchy?

Definition:

an·ar·chy (nr-k) KEY

NOUN:
pl. an·ar·chies

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

ETYMOLOGY:
New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhi, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without ; see a- 1 + arkhos, ruler ; see -arch

coffee na lang dear

Anarchy is a state of non-governance and lawlessness. What was happenning in Christiania and zapatismo are called consensus democracy therefore far from what anarchy means.

We Filipinos called what happened in 1986 as 'revolution' in transition to good governance from a 'not so good' government but it is never anarchy since laws were still imposed during those times.

alexandra

Just to clarify what we're talking about, I thought I'd contribute a brief definition of 'anarchism' as a political theory/belief [extract reproduced from the 'Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics' by McLean, I. (1996)]:

Smurf

Like Alexandra pointed out, Anarchism as a political theory is based around 2 principles

1. The absence of a state structure.
and
2. The absence of other destructive hierarchies.

Everything else varies from anarchist to anarchist, but any theory which involves these two principles is, at least in part, anarchist. And any theory which does not involve these two principles is not anarchist (such as the cop-out Anarcho-Capitalism or, even better, Anarcho-Fascism)

So..
This is wrong since Anarchism is the absense of a "state" (joking! I know meant the other kind of state)

The Smoking Man

So what you are saying then is that the brief 5 minutes before the Comandante actually assumes office is Anarchy.

Prior to that, they are revolutionary fighters/ Terrorists (by the State Definition).

And after that, they are a coup?

Smurf

There is no 'office'.

Commandante and Subcommandante or mere words. Marcos has no (in the way you are perceiving it) power, he is a spokesperson. Esther too.

And they are not a coup, they are not trying to overthrow the mexican government.

And I'm sure they've always been 'terrorists' by the state's definition.

The Smoking Man

So what you are describing are 'terrorists' who threaten a government into compliance and are unreachable because they can remain under cover?

Like Iraq?

The Smoking Man

Oh, and the 'mere words' you talk about are designations of military rank.

Commander ... one who gives commands.

You know ... Klink said, "Hogan!!!!"

And Schultz said, "I know NOTHING!!!"

Commandant.

Smurf

Comandanta doesn't mean commander actually. And I have no idea what the translation of subcomandante is, I can only seem to find it in relation to the zapatistas. It's possible they made it up.

Seriously, stop making assumptions.

Edit: Better yet, stop trying to villanize a group that's trying to fight back (and doing good) against a clearly oppressive government.