Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Anarchy, again.

  1. Oct 27, 2005 #1
    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. :biggrin:

    My favourites are Christiania and Zapatismo.
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 27, 2005 #2
    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.
  4. Oct 27, 2005 #3
    A point? My point was to: "point out all the successful incidents or how 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.
  5. Oct 27, 2005 #4
    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.
  6. Oct 27, 2005 #5
    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.
  7. Oct 27, 2005 #6
    Wikipedia is censored in China? My god, you poor people....
  8. Oct 27, 2005 #7
    Not all of it.

    When they upgraded the filters, they gave it the ability to filter at a finer level than the base URL.
  9. Oct 27, 2005 #8
  10. Oct 28, 2005 #9
    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?


    an·ar·chy (nr-k) KEY

    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.

    New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhi, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without ; see a- 1 + arkhos, ruler ; see -arch
  11. Oct 28, 2005 #10
    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.
  12. Oct 28, 2005 #11
    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)]:
  13. Oct 28, 2005 #12
    Like Alexandra pointed out, Anarchism as a political theory is based around 2 principles

    1. The absence of a state structure.
    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)

    This is wrong since Anarchism is the absense of a "state" :biggrin: (joking! I know meant the other kind of state)
  14. Oct 28, 2005 #13
    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?
  15. Oct 28, 2005 #14
    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.
  16. Oct 28, 2005 #15
    So what you are describing are 'terrorists' who threaten a government into compliance and are unreachable because they can remain under cover?

    Like Iraq?
  17. Oct 28, 2005 #16
    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!!!"

  18. Oct 28, 2005 #17
    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.
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2005
  19. Oct 29, 2005 #18
    Dude, it's the spanish feminine form of Commander.

    Who's making assumptions?

    You're the one posting the links. I'm reading them and coming back here and quoting them.

    I don't know ... whenever I see a bunch of people dressed in cammo with bandoleers, balaclavas and they refer to one as commander and another as sub commander, I see a military unit of the revolutionary type.

    What I am trying to figure out is why you assume this is 'anarchy'.

    So, the American revolutionaries were 'anarchists' when they hosted the 'boston tea party'?

    The Russians when they 'offed' the Tsar and Tsarina?

    China over the Emperor?

    The list goes on ... now what makes what they are doing any different from the above list and any people the world over than the fact they have not been successful enough to topple the incumbent government due to lack of skill funds and backing?

    Just tell me why they are unique and what makes them anarchists, please.

    Try using your own words because the sites don't have your conviction that they are actually anarchists.
  20. Oct 29, 2005 #19
    :wink: i know you'll figure it out :wink:
  21. Oct 29, 2005 #20
    It also means a few other things. Like "flagship", or in this case, more literally "spokesperson" (or spokeswoman since it's feminine).
    Because they're ideology is called "Zapatismo" which is very similar to many idealized forms of anarchism because all the communities are autonomous municipalities where decisions are made by consensus and leadership is non-hierarchial.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Anarchy, again.
  1. Gauntanamo AGAIN (Replies: 2)

  2. Stability of anarchy. (Replies: 275)

  3. Socialism again (Replies: 69)

  4. Fox News: Whoops Again (Replies: 64)