This is how Trump won in the first place, wikileaks published emails of Hilary’s campaign doing this. Instead of critisizing her for being responsible for Trump, democrats blamed Russia and attecked Wikileaks as Russian spies, literally called for shooting the messenger.

This is a prime example of why voting for lesser evil is not a tactic in politics and the whole liberal ideology as whole that we just need to vote for right people, instead of removing powerful positions in government in the first place.

How can I make an argument against if I agree with you? Did you even read my previous reply? This is exactly what I said, you just pick a battle where no one is disagreeing with you, just so you can feel smart to win an argument no one is arguing against you. What is your next comment going to be, asking again for an counter argument to the same point we are agreeing on?

No one can really know how many people are illegally improsioned, directly or indirectly, through puppet governments, by US or by China. We can either messure by the numbers we have, or we can make up our own numbers. There is no reason to believe that China lies about it’s numbers any more then US, everybody uses some loopholes. US is funding many other governments, like Saudi Arabia and Israel to put people in prisons and kill people for them, all around the World. I don’t see the point of questioning China numbers and not US numbers.

Spain was run without government during anarchist revolution in 20th century and their production and technological advancement increased, since there was no one on the top taking all the profits that otherwise would be used for investing in the community and industry. Quality of life is always better in free societies, then when you have to listen to your boss, work long hours and struggle to pay the bills. As far as I know, once Europen children were raised in native amercian egalitarian societies, they would never want to go back to cities and work long hours under someone else’s rule.

I don’t know much about Amish, but I got the feeling that they are patriarchal society, which is exactly the opposite of a free anarchist society where no one rules over anyone else.

I have nothing against doing temporary solutions, but I am generally don’t really see anyone giving proportional fight for that third real solution, but I see many people spending a decent part of their day reading, talking and getting angry over these incomplete solutions and getting often confused on what is right and what is wrong.

My understanding is that every option where you vote for any party is pretty fascistic choice, and only some parties are better at hiding it then others. All parties generally disguise their ideas as fight for the working class, both racist and “progressive” parties, while both do exactly the same thing in terms of worker rights and interests. I think that pretending to fight for “progressive” ideas while doing exactly the opposite for the conditions that cause that hatred and domination of one group over another, is just as harmful, if not more so.

There is a good video I just watched today about it, I highly recommend it. And I highly recommend spending more time building actual co-operatives, (direct democratic) unions and other horizontal structures opposed to getting caught up in these games rich people play with us. Educating people and yourself of current and past anarchistic movement should be a priority over criticizing and legitimizing these forms of hierarchical systems.

That is simply not true. There is a good video about it, but you can also look it up yourself. The term is egalitarian societies and antrhopologists in last 50 years discovered a bunch of currently living tribes with such structures as well as found much of evidence that before agriculture that was the norm.

The workers in those post offices are the one that run the post office, bottom up structure. In Spain during anarchist revolution, people were running every part of society in this manner without appointed leaders: factories, banks, military. And they were doing great. Turns out when you don’t have someone at the top leaching all the profits, it ends up pretty profitable for the workers and job becomes a lot easier to do. You can look up anrho-sindicalist war in Spain in 20th century if you don’t believe me.

It’s a show, not a reality

I never disagreed with you on this. You just want to argue and feel smarter then everybody.

That is what happens when a bunch of rich kids try to play equality, while actually growing up as spoiled brats. In true egalitarian societies, which were the norm for 95% of humanities history, people live extremely equal lives where they HAVE to be nice to each other. When you have no choice but to get along with others, you have to take care of other peoples feelings or you can get kicked out of your group and left to fend for yourselves, which in nature is a death sentence. Or since there is no police, just straight up murdered by someone else.

No one is naturally nice, but when you live together with other people, you are forced to be. Unless you have rich mom and dad where you can go back to, if others aren’t letting you do what they did.

Many societies did. In fact, for 200 000 years, that is all we were, no rulers no chiefs, all equal, direct democracy sharing societies. This system is imposed on us ever since agriculture where we can’t easily escape our lands. However, when we organize together, in large enough numbers and introduce direct democracy and clear and concrete brave actions, we can take back control from people in power.

No, it is not. Where do you get these ideas? It is harder to get control over people in an already free society then in a society where you can use already existing structures of control to gain even more control

Don’t worry, it is a lot harder for sociopath to have control over people in an already free society then in a society where you can use already existing structures of control to gain more control. Never forget, that in a system with no police, anyone can kill you if you try to hurt them. Where there is no state goverment, the people are government. And people make far more effective police to actually protect themselves then these selfish fucks.

How? What would make me, or anyone else, follow Dwight Schrutte, or anyone else, if no one is making me and more importantly, if I have a good collective support to stop anyone who is trying to dominate over me. The whole idea here is that we don’t want a boss. If we can remove a boss in this society where we already have one, it would be even easier to remove a boss where we are already free and there is no one in power who can effectively stop us from just murdering Dwight.

Direct democracy isn’t supposed to be passive, but in every anarchist community, it is collectively enforced. Republicans (and anyone else) should be actively fought not to be in power, but that doesn’t mean by simply giving someone else power to rule over you. We can simply agree to collectively fight anyone who tries to be in power, we can follow who we want in this fight, but no one should force us to follow them and anyone who tries should be collectively fought against as well.

Well you are assuming that someone would step in with central authority. I will not get into a pointless fight of who was right, we agree that another system should be put in place. We might disagree that it quite natural to put a system of direct democracy in place when there is no central goverment, as it is often the case inside a friend group when people are making a decision about where they are going to eat or whatever. It is not my fault that I assumed what you are trying to say, it is quite reasonable and necessary in any conversation to assume what someone is trying to say if they haven’t been perfectly clear, which is ok since no one can be perfectly clear all the time. But you do have a bit of an attitude, in your orginal comment and here. You are being a bit arrogant and degrading other peoples opinions.

It supports the case that it can work. I never made an argument that it always works forever. There are failed attempts, but the cause of their failure is also very important. It is often claimed that somehow, internally, anarchism can not work within a country, while usually the reason anarchisam is destroyed is due to outside invasion or interference. It is simply the case, that anarchist are currently outnumbered, mostly due to opinions like this, that it can not work, so we should try it. If we get a critical mass of enough people, it would be the opposite, states would not be able to survive in a majority anarchistic World, as no one would need to surrender themselves to domination by rulers if they can easily find a better alternative.

? A simple wikipedia search shows there is clearly a president of somalia and there is a goverment that is “federal palamentary constitunoal republic”. Am I missing something? This is the president of somalia.

Exactly, that is why no anarchist believes in giving someone power that they can’t take back at any moment. That is exactly the anarchist point of view, you don’t give other people power, no matter what they say they will use it for. Power of a commander can be purely on a voluntary basis, many native american tribes lived exactly this way. Most of the prehistoric humans lived this way. You can choose to follow someone more experienced, but that is purely your choice and at any moment you can just simply step-away if you disagree. No one is saying you can’t look for inspiration for making decisions in others, but you should never agree to follow someone whatever choice they make. All armies are made of mere civilians, we are all just people. It is just that some are more experienced then others, for example, by having formal military training or being a veteran. In those situations, people naturally listen to those with more experience, as long as they seem reasonable. Furthermore, you can have formal combat training in societies without rulers as well. So having mere civilians banded together is not a trait of anarchist society.

What power vacuum? What does that even mean? That somebody is always in power over someone else? If no one is making you do something, you simply choose for yourself. Existence of some kind of a power vacuum would mean that no one can make a decision for themselves about anything, but that some one has to tell them what to do. Which obviously makes no sense, since someone ultimately has to decide. Politics is all about decision making power. If you have no rulers, then people have the decision making power to choose to live as they wish.

No one has a functional state goverment if it’s function is to actually help the people. If states function is to keep people in power, and it is, then they are all functional, including Somalian.