Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Rath said:
Anarchy is the extreme of libertarianism.
To be a libertarian doesn't mean you have to take it to the very extreme though, it's a sliding scale. Just like how socialists don't have to believe that all property has to be communually owned.
The libertarians on this board don't take libertarianism to the point where they reject all established authority. |
But some anarchists do...
Anarchists can be the extreme at either end of the scale. They don't seem to realise that they actually want entirely different societies which would work based on different aspects of human nature - those aspects, being of questionable realism.
|
Anarchists who want communal property are just communists who either haven't read the communist manifesto or didn't understand it.
Well or impatient communists if they do understand what the end result of communism is supposed to look like.
|
I believe there was much unity in the 19th century between Anarchists and Communists. What I believe happened was through the likes of Lenin, there was a drive on the Communist side to bring about the end of capitalism via the use of the state. Appauled by this, the Anarchists split.
In regards to the discussion here, there are people who can go anarchists for a number of reasons, and have a different view of property, and other things also.
|
It's because Lenin (rightfully) knew that human nature acts agaisnt working in an anarchist co-op type way.
Therefore he thought a Strong government was needed to beat individualism, ethinicity and nationality out of the common person changing everyons sociology from the base of it to be based more towards collectivism. (whether or not such a thing is possible, it's unknown... and obviously the ends don't justify the means)
Or he was just a power hungry dick.
|
I don't think they need to be mutually exclusive. It could be that his hubris, with the observation of human nature, led Lenin to be Lenin politically.
