Added: 3 years ago
From: oldbirdhat
Views: 639
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (33)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Way to accurately represent the left... (note the sarcasm)

  • long live anarcho-syndicalism! smash capitalism

  • What kind of journalist uses words like "loons"?

    And the left should get more violent, in my opinion.

  • you lose. -_-

  • lol.. "anarchists that hate america".. and bill is just a guy that loves america, but hates half the people in it. It's funny they report on this, but they somehow miss all of the peaceful protests where the police go overboard and start shooting rubber bullets and arresting people for stepping off of a sidewalk and onto a street.

  • I am an anarchist, I hate the gov of the USA and it system, but i dont hate the people of the usa.

  • Anarchists are naieve, and unrealistic.. In the video there, they change "These are whose streets? OUR STREETS!".. If it weren't for government, it would be pretty unlikely that there would be any real streets... also, there would be no regulations on corporate polution.. so any corporation could pollute as much as they want, pay people as little as they want..everything would be trade and barter.. Anarchism has NEVER been applied sucessfully to a massive nation because it's too absurd to try it

  • hahahahahahahahahahahah.... Im fucking too tired to explain you whole anarchist theory or even a single point to make you understand,

  • Oh yes, I know. anarchism just means having no government. and simitaneously having a structured hierarchy of dealing with what needs to be dealt with on a communal level. wake up..don't think for a second that you could begin to educate me on anarchism.. Anarchists are a joke.. if you don't realize that yet, you are a child.. down playing it by saying you're too tired to explain it to me just further endorses this notion. There's nothing to explain because anything you say will be called out.

  • That is so stupid and ignorant that doesn't deserve even a reply.

  • lol, again, that's all you can say. Anarchism CAN'T be applied in this day and age.. it's IMPOSSIBLE to avoid having a government of some kind... every culture that has existed on the face of this earth has had some form of hierarchal structure. You are a joke, and so is anarchism.

  • you seem confused, and not too informed as to what anarchist theory entails. anarchism is not tearing down societal structures, it's about maintaining them in the absence of the state.

  • Anarchists are confused about anarchism.. it's not one solidly layed out theory.. there are multiple views on what anarchism would mean. Maintaining them in the absense of state? Please do tell HOW THE FUCK THAT'S POSSIBLE... If you have structure, on a massive scale.. it's going to to lead to state.. end of story. Anarchism is a dream of fools.

  • You need to define what a state is before you can say with certainty that one would arise necessarily out of structure.

  • why do i need to define what a state is, when i'm not the one that supposited the notion?

  • Because you made a statement concerning what causes states to exist. If you're confident enough to make assertions as to the cause of something then you should probably be able to provide a working definition of that thing.

    It would probably also reveal how your definition differs from anarchists, which would make your refutation of anarchism a semantic rather than theoretical difference. (Assuming you have a different definition)

  • Anarchism is a pipe dream.. good night.

  • No, it isn't. Anarchism posits that society should be run on a decentralised level. This is quite possible, thank you.

  • Quite possible, even though you have ZERO examples of this through out the entire course of recorded human history in large societies.. Yeah, thank you for clarifying how retarded anarchists are.. and to set the record straight, I view myself as a progressive moderate.. and i HATE fox news..but anarchists are ridiculous and naieve..

  • "Quite possible, even though you have ZERO examples of this through out the entire course of recorded human history in large societies" You really are clueless aren't you? OK: Spain, 1930s. One million anarchists basically running whole regions in an anarchic way. There's your example.

  • Quoting facts that aren't true does not make them true.. Spain has always had leadership, and a government of some kind.. nice try.. Even if what you said is true, it just goes to prove that anarchism failed them.. otherwise it would still be the philosophy of the country.. DUURR

  • Spain had a government, yes, but the anarchist union operated outside of its control.

  • one example would be the Paris Commune, another would be the Spanish Anarchists.

  • examples that obviously held no water since they're no longer around. good job. way to disprove your argument, completely

  • So if you were in Europe in the middle ages you would have accepted that Democracy can't work?

  • why would I accept that? Democracy wasn't in practice..

  • Now think about the arguments you've presented against anarchism and perhaps the comparison will make sense.

  • they're no longer around because they were put down by force. besides, what does the lifespan of these movements have to do with their efficacy?

  • if they can't stand up to force from their own nation, that doesn't give them much palpability as a system that can function independantly.

  • the jews in europe couldn't effectively stand up to the force of nazis. neither could any other dissenting political faction for that matter. does that justify the third reich?

    are you trying to make the "might makes right" argument?

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more