Absolute bullshat definition.So, first, I'd like to define Leftism: any ideology that advocates an end to capitalism in favor of a more egalitarian political economy such as socialism or communism.
Absolute bullshat definition.
Capitalism and socialism are not at all exclusive of each other, or even at odds with one another. The two co-exist in most countries of the world including the USA and most all communist countries.
Anarchism is more akin to libertarianism than anything else. Libertarians want to abolish most of the functions of government. That is anarchy.
Capitalism and socialism are not at all exclusive of each other, or even at odds with one another. The two co-exist in most countries of the world including the USA and most all communist countries.
Anarchism is more akin to libertarianism than anything else. Libertarians want to abolish most of the functions of government. That is anarchy.
Most countries where capitalism thrives are democratic socialistic states.
The problem here is you wish to discuss textbook idiological definitions and I am talking about pragmatic reality.Please, keep it civil.
Capitalism may include socialist measures. This does not mean that a capitalism and socialism are working together. It means that reforms have been made to appease oppressed groups.
Anarchism doesn't just advocate the abolishment of government, but rather an abolishment of hierarchies. You can see this based off of the direct meaning of the word, quite literally "no ruler, rules". American libertarianism is nothing like anarchism, as it favors capitalism, which is inherently hierarchical.
The problem here is you wish to discuss textbook idiological definitions and I am talking about pragmatic reality.
Most countries where capitalism thrives are democratic socialistic states. The USA, France, Germany, Italy,all the Scandinavian countries,The UK, Japan, South Korea etc...
Libertarianism is like but not Anarchy. Libertarianism advocates less government. Anarchism factors no government. Both advocate reduction of government size, but to different levels.
Yes. All that separates anarchism from libertarianism is a matter of degree. There are no real countries that can claim a pure anarchistic or a pure libertarian states.
The obvious reasons are that neither could work as a successful country.
Yes. All that separates anarchism from libertarianism is a matter of degree. There are no real countries that can claim a pure anarchistic or a pure libertarian states.
The obvious reasons are that neither could work as a successful country.
Anarchism would likely form small power blocs throughout the country with near tribal leaders and warlords. Libertarianism would maintain law, order, infrastructure and national security. Therefore giving people the essentials and allowing themselves to lead their own lives without interference in what they can and cannot do. It is true that there is no such thing as a pure Libertarian state, however some have tendencies and there is no such thing as and anarchist country, since it would have collapsed.
None of these places are socialistic states. There is not a single socialistic state in existence, and there is yet to be one.
There is such a thing as anarchist law and anarchist order. It is just operated without a state.
However, of course there are no anarchist countries. Like I said above, you cannot have anarchism, communism, or socialism in one country.
I could just as easily argue that no countries in the world are pure capitalistic
or democratic states.
The most successful countries in the world are a blend of democratic socialistic and capitalistic systems. The balance is slightly different from country to country but all three co-exist in all successful countries.
I would define the success of a country by the happiness of the people and their standards of living.
A country run by tribal leaders would be a tribal state. A country run by warlords would be a marshal state. Pure anarchy simply could not exist . It is a theoretical ideology just like libertarianism, capitalism and communism. Theoretical ideology does not exist in reality. Every successful country is some blend.1) would you mind quoting my name next time since it didn't come up as a notification.
2)Anarchism would likely form small power blocs throughout the country with near tribal leaders and warlords. Libertarianism would maintain law, order, infrastructure and national security. Therefore giving people the essentials and allowing themselves to lead their own lives without interference in what they can and cannot do. It is true that there is no such thing as a pure Libertarian state, however some have tendencies and there is no such thing as and anarchist country, since it would have collapsed.
But that Anarchist law is not conducted by a centralised government, due to it being concentrated around little locales it is hardly a "country" in the definition of one.
Anarchist law is possible as you stated, its like just having local government and not state or federal. It depends on where you are and it varies but locale.
I could just as easily argue that no countries in the world are pure capitalistic or democratic states.
The most successful countries in the world are a blend of democratic socialistic and capitalistic systems. The balance is slightly different from country to country but all three co-exist in all successful countries.
I would define the success of a country by the happiness of the people and their standards of living.
A country run by tribal leaders would be a tribal state. A country run by warlords would be a marshal state. Pure anarchy simply could not exist . It is a theoretical ideology just like libertarianism, capitalism and communism. Theoretical ideology does not exist in reality. Every successful country is some blend.
You're still operating under the idea that anarchism can exist while there are still non-anarchist countries.
However, what is the problem with having decentralized law? Meaning, law that is not enforced by a state? (As all governments and states are centralized).
Just as their is no pure socialist state, there is no pure, laissez faire free market capitalist state. The most successful countries vary by ideology and variants on the factors taken in to decide (As I will outline below). Therefore there are some such as the UAE (Authoritarian capitalists), strong economy but not very free or high standard of living for most people. However in the UK (Democratic Capitalist) for example the economy is on a downturn but we are free and a high standard of living is expected. In China the economy is strong but there is very little freedom and a low standard of living. The main way to designate a successful country is to look at the economy, freedom and standard of living.
I would define it by the state of the economy, the freedom of people and standards of living. As I said above.
The Soviet block has dissolved so I think country fits all modern definitions of "governments".I agree with this definition, but can we change "country" to "system"?
Global anarchism will never happen unless there is a catastrophe of apocalyptic proportions. An Anarchist state will likely be "intruded" into the country by the UN or someone and re-establishing national law and order.
Nothing wrong with decentralised law, its just that I wouldn't consider a state a country if the only law was local law.
A country run by tribal leaders would be a tribal state. A country run by warlords would be a marshal state. Pure anarchy simply could not exist . It is a theoretical ideology just like libertarianism, capitalism and communism. Theoretical ideology does not exist in reality. Every successful country is some blend.
Worked ??Capitalism is not a theoretical ideology.
Also, feudalism was not a theoretical ideology yet it worked.
Two things, but they're rather minor.
First, you can't have an anarchist state (anarchism is antithetical to the idea of a state).
Second, that's why anarchists call for global insurrection.
The Soviet block has dissolved so I think country fits all modern definitions of "governments".
Buck Ewer;1062201474Again I am talking pragmatic reality and you wish to discuss theoretical "systems" of government. They do not exist. There is capitalism in the most communist countries and there is socialism the most democratic countries.[/QUOTE said:There is no country that is even remotely communist.
Buck Ewer;1062201474You insist in speaking about absolutes that simply do not exist.[/QUOTE said:Prove to me that there is not an absolute capitalism.
Buck Ewer;1062201474Again said:The problem is that socialist measures without total socialism cannot be considered as relatin to socialism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?