Ancaps and Ansoc

>>1072190
I think there's a general stupidity with anarchy, because states will naturally form in a power vacuum, since there's simply a tendency to do so.

The thing with socialist anarchy is you can barely justify it by saying people would not accept someone trying to take power and would band together to nip it in the bud. Barely. That's assuming everyone is on the same page.

With ancap, the mentality is that it's perfectly acceptable for someone to start consolidating power. The line is drawn farther at trying to start a coercive state. So even if everyone is on the same page about government being bad, by the time they band together, power has already been consolidated.

this thread is shit and so are you

>>1072218
I'm sorry mister rothbard, did I hurt your feelings?

File: Taczanka.jpg (30KB, 510x276px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 510x276px

Ansocs are anarchists depending on what you define as 'state'. There isn't actually a concrete definition. Some people define a state as anything over local self-rule.

So tribes, independent towns, collectives ect, don't count as states. This is important because anarchists should get their definitions straight.

The ones that came close to succeeding (failed because of outside invasion by Stalinist or fascists, or by the Japanese in the case of the Korean anarchist movement) were the ones that could be described as 'minarchist' rather than truly anarchist depending on definitions.

The Ukrainian free territory being the prime example, they had an army.

Sick disinformation thread, bro.

>>1072190
It is funny because any form of anarchy is unworkable except on the very small scale