[Siberian Fox]

I hope that the caption for this forum is reasonably accurate. I have also changed the liberalism forum caption to remove the reference to libertarianism.

[smashthestate]

Well now the liberalism forum sounds wierd. It says "the individual before the state," but then it also says "state responsibility to the people (welfare)."

These contradict eachother in my opinion. I think the Libertarian forum should have the "individual before the state."

Also, we aren't exactly anti-militaristic, we are just anti-interventionist. That should also be changed in my opinion. Everything else looks great.

[Siberian Fox]

...we aren't exactly anti-militaristic, we are just anti-interventionist.

I was going to put isolationist, but that sounds wrong from an economic point of view...

*goes to change the caption*

[Goranhammer]

I would imagine they believe in the "individual before the state" when it comes to moral and ethical issues, but "state responsibility to the people" in financial aspects. This is where the overabundance of government programs and welfare come from.

This would be my only guess as to the distinction of the two.

[smashthestate]

I was going to put isolationist, but that sounds wrong from an economic point of view...

This is the best nutshell description of our views:

- individual liberty and personal responsibility
- a free-market economy of abundance and prosperity
- a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade

That's straight from our home page.

[Noumenon]

Property rights are also vital to libertarianism, especially self-ownership. But the caption right now is good enough.

[Kamil]

Property rights are also vital to libertarianism, especially self-ownership. But the caption right now is good enough.

Property rights and self-ownership? How contradictory.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Well now the liberalism forum sounds wierd. It says "the individual before the state," but then it also says "state responsibility to the people (welfare)."

As a new convert to "liberalism", I'll try and answer this. We are strongly in favour of individual rights, but we also recognise that the government must intervene to a certain extent, since pure "libertarianism" makes some people vulnerable to exploitation. Therefore the government must play a role on two fronts: 1. to minimise the expoitation of the poor (regulation) and 2. to help the poor and underpriveleged (welfare). We consider the second one a duty of the state since such an important thing should not be left to individual volunteers.

[Noumenon]

Property rights and self-ownership? How contradictory.

How so? Libertarianism holds that you own yourself, the unowned things you mix your labor with, and the things you obtain through voluntary exchange (as long as what you obtain was justly held property). I don't see a contradiction.

[Demosthenes]

erm...ahem, excuse me, someone mentioned wanting some of my threads? You'll need to either pm or make a list here so I know which ones.

If they're a toss up we can flip for em...or paper, scissors, rock or something... There's also a heft Libertarian section in the Conservative sticky...I might be able to pry that loose with a few kind words and a dinner date.

Freedom complied it all though, so I hope his name would remain on any unaltered works...

[Kamil]

If someone is to violate another's property rights with having their use pattern intersect with the land, per se, I have power over that individual. Simply said, it is a form of domination since by having a "legitimate" monopoly over my land, I can enforce subsidiary state functions such as the police or military to enforce your discontinuation of occupancy on my property. Better yet, I can apply the use of force against you for your apparent transgression.

[smashthestate]

If someone is to violate another's property rights with having their use pattern intersect with the land, per se, I have power over that individual. Simply said, it is a form of domination since by having a "legitimate" monopoly over my land, I can enforce subsidiary state functions such as the police or military to enforce your discontinuation of occupancy on my property. Better yet, I can apply the use of force against you for your apparent transgression.

Let's take it from an anarchist perspective then. Let's say a person simply declares a piece of land as his, and he will use force against anyone who tries to use it. It is, in his mind, his private property, and no one else's. If anyone else uses that property, he will have power over that individual himself.

Whether it is respected by the government or by individuals, private property will never be abolished.

[Kamil]

Let's say a person simply declares a piece of land as his, and he will use force against anyone who tries to use it. It is, in his mind, his private property, and no one else's. If anyone else uses that property, he will have power over that individual himself.

The piece of land would not be private property on account that in order to constitute a piece of land as private property, a state-protected monopoly over the use of the land would have to be prompted. Though the concept is the same, the whole fiasco would be handled. If people were to use his "owned" land and he were to turn to the use of violence as an impetus of deterring them, he'd be taken care of depending on the severity of his actions. If he is severly abusing individuals who happen to step onto his piece of land, he will be annihilated, perhaps, if his acts are unjustified. Unless he can provide a decent justification for his apparent violent protection over his land, his case will be dismissed. This scenario would not be likely to occur since commodity fetishism and things of that nature would dissipate.

[smashthestate]

The piece of land would not be private property on account that in order to constitute a piece of land as private property, a state-protected monopoly over the use of the land would have to be prompted.

In the scenario I gave that title is simply a meaningless technicality. It doesn't change the fact that that piece of land is being protected from use by anyone else by force. This is the same whether it is done individually or by the state. Again, this is simply a technicality.

Though the concept is the same, the whole fiasco would be handled. If people were to use his "owned" land and he were to turn to the use of violence as an impetus of deterring them, he'd be taken care of depending on the severity of his actions.

My God. It simply is stunning the way the Utopian Anarchists just happen to know exactly how society is going to behave in the absense of a government. There are a millions what-if's, Kam, and you can't possibly contend that you know exactly how each would be handled. What if this person gathered with many other persons and decided to defend the "rights of an even larger piece of property? What if they had superior weapons, etc. It might not be the "private property" you refer to, but again that is just a technicality at this point.

If he is severly abusing individuals who happen to step onto his piece of land, he will be annihilated, perhaps, if his acts are unjustified.

And perhaps his piece of land is small and undesirable for farming or anything like that? Perhaps no one wants to risk their lives for that piece of land? Perhaps no one would do anything. Perhaps this idea would catch on any pretty soon everyone would start doing it? Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps!

Unless he can provide a decent justification for his apparent violent protection over his land, his case will be dismissed.

By whom!?

This scenario would not be likely to occur since commodity fetishism and things of that nature would dissipate.

Why? For what reasons would this happen?

You are more of a Utopian Anarchist than anyone I've ever met. It seems like you already know exactly how this society would function in every situation. But in reality, your guess is as good as mine. At least history has shown us some lessons on lawless societies, and believe me, they aren't quite what you're imagining them to be.

Your idea is utopian.

[Demosthenes]

I didn't get any replies...so I just guessed. Let me know if you want anything else...

[Kamil]

In the scenario I gave that title is simply a meaningless technicality. It doesn't change the fact that that piece of land is being protected from use by anyone else by force. This is the same whether it is done individually or by the state. Again, this is simply a technicality.

The question of how the land is being protected determines its proprietive or possessive relation. In the case of individual protection of possession, a justified transition to the application force would be if it is involved in an expropriation or it is being deliberately damaged. What is not justified is if one's use pattern intersects with the property, and therefore, force is applied by the apparent owner in order to discontinue that person's use of their land. In the case of the former, I could understand some sort of a confrontation. If the thief refuses to return the stolen possession, I could see the use of force being applied to retrieve the object. However, in the case of the latter, if someone sits down on your lawn, for instance, I don't think its suitable and justified to use force against the.
The dichotomy between self-ownership and property rights depicts to us, that the conflict is irreconcilable and is a flaw in libertarian thought. No matter how much you attempt to digress this arguement into an arguement against anarchism, the fact remains that this apparent flaw cancels out one of liberty-oriented aspects of libertarianism: self-ownership. I can also list many other flaws in libertarianism, but, I guess I'll have to wait 'til the debate arrives.

Property is theft!

My God. It simply is stunning the way the Utopian Anarchists just happen to know exactly how society is going to behave in the absense of a government. There are a millions what-if's, Kam, and you can't possibly contend that you know exactly how each would be handled.

How do you expect to legitimize your libertarian philosophy if you cannot even lay-out a blueprint for the desired milieu? Certainly, as I have reiterated many times before, there are no definite answers for such proposed scenarios, but only by using scientific principles and empirical analysis can we presuppose how the consciousness engendered by the superstructure of the given society can/will apply to everyday situations and mishaps. Therefore, we can roughly estimate what to expect from different sorts of situations by looking at the consciousness of men engendered by their milieu. Otherwise, how can your philosophy be considered viable without any scientific reasoning exerted into it? It's completely vacuous and unreliable to simply postulate on the reasons why your desired milieu is more efficient, realizable, and desirable than that of mine if you cannot offer any scientific substantiation on your incentive to adhering to this philosophy and how you can guarantee efficiency in its function. It is you that is utopian due to your vehement opposition to the process of laying-out blueprints for the future ideal society of which you desire. You may think that, because you desire less of a change, you're automatically not utopian. Therefore, by that logic, I am utopian because I advocate much more proportionate degrees of change. That is bullshit. No offence.

Questions as to how might the people react to the imposed policies, how this way of life will come about, how might the engendered consciousness comply with different sets of laws, rights, etc, and how the society will function are questions needed to be answered. At least, when we abide by scientific principles, it'll take more than mere postulation to discredit an arguement.

IMHO, it's more rational to desire a global social revolution abolishing the entire class structure of society than to believe that the bourgeoisie, in a prominent empire, will openly capitulate their empire via the siphoning of power into the hands of the people just because a third party happened to win an election. It's a pipe dream to even imagine the capitulation of a monolithic bourgeois empire and the lifestyle it engenders; the lifestyle of plethoric prerogatives in measures of power, wealth, etc... In America, a radical third party will never win. If voting had the ability to change the system, it'd be made illegal, as Emma Goldman would say. By your own logic, the government will not capitulate their property. To protect their property, the government turns to different kinds of measures that would be needed to initiate if we were speaking of landed property. Generally, a government projects obedience through either ideological hegemony or totalitarianism. If ideological hegemony, as practised by the American government, does not succeed in suppressing opposition, the use of violence(a period of totalitarianism) is a natural continuation. America is large enough to deter not only its own people, but the world. It will not by a long shot just give up.

Yes, there are millions of "what if's" but if a philosophy is to be considered as credible, it has to make sense of its program by laying-out a blueprint for the society and answering common questions with the use of scientific reasoning.

For more on ideological hegemony click here

What if this person gathered with many other persons and decided to defend the "rights of an even larger piece of property? What if they had superior weapons, etc. It might not be the "private property" you refer to, but again that is just a technicality at this point.

What would precipitate such desire to defend a given land mass?

And perhaps his piece of land is small and undesirable for farming or anything like that? Perhaps no one wants to risk their lives for that piece of land? Perhaps no one would do anything. Perhaps this idea would catch on any pretty soon everyone would start doing it? Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps!

These are mere blanket statements. If no one wants to risk their lives for that piece of land, then it'll be settled; the individual possessing the land was will be ignored. Taking action is not a requisition. If it decided that it's better off to stay away from the person, that is what will be done. Besides, it's not even certain if such a scenario did happen to arise.

Why? For what reasons would this happen?

You are more of a Utopian Anarchist than anyone I've ever met. It seems like you already know exactly how this society would function in every situation. But in reality, your guess is as good as mine. At least history has shown us some lessons on lawless societies, and believe me, they aren't quite what you're imagining them to be.

Your idea is utopian.

Forsooth, your guesses are garbage since their entire basis is founded upon presupposition. However, my basis has more scientific substantiation and reasoning, therefore more reliant.

To epitomize your logic, I'm going to presuppose that libertarianism will prompt a hostile takeover from a species transcending our galaxy. If a society becomes more autonomous and desirable, spectator alien species will invade our society due to its desirability. But hey, my guess is as good as yours.

In retrospect, past anarchist movements have functioned without any major theoretical problems. The problem, however, is that a single national movement cannot overpower global imperialist forces.

It is you that is utopian. You expect your libertarian society to work with the use of mere supposition.

[Spin]

Well now the liberalism forum sounds wierd. It says "the individual before the state," but then it also says "state responsibility to the people (welfare)."

We do put the individual before the state but we put a large group of individuals before one individual.

[smashthestate]

However, in the case of the latter, if someone sits down on your lawn, for instance, I don't think its suitable and justified to use force against them.

Then we're going to have to agree to disagree. Our difference of opinion is moralistic and irreconcilable at this point in the argument.

I believe a person has a right to something he has produced with his labor, as well as the property that he lives on. People simply can't be allowed to come tromping through my house or making racket outside of it any time they want, since it is "the people's property." If there was no government backing my private property, I would back it myself. In other words, it wouldn't matter if it was anarchy or not I would defend that property.

Now I have a question for you. You have mentioned that you must have some kind of blueprint for your ideas about society, so I am asking you what your blueprint says about possession turning into property in an anarchist society? In other words, what would prevent a social anarchist society of communes and cooperatives from evolving into an individualistic anarchist society such as anarcho-capitalism?

I basically want to know this. How is it that without any authority your society will have the results which you have asserted on this forum on several occasions. What mechanisms in your "blueprint" convince you that these guarantees and predictions will indeed come about?

No matter how much you attempt to digress this arguement into an arguement against anarchism

There is no longer any argument possible. We have reached this point:

It is acceptable to have the state defend property rights for individuals.

or

It is not acceptable to have the state defend property rights for individuals.

These are both ultimatum statements and can't be debated any further, it's now just a matter of moral opinion.

How do you expect to legitimize your libertarian philosophy if you cannot even lay-out a blueprint for the desired milieu?

The pieces will fall where they may. All we propose is a republic respecting certain laws, whatever happens after that is out of our hands. Similarly, after the destruction of the state or the existing authority by an anarchist revolution, the pieces will fall where they will, and it is out of your hands, and mine, or anyone else's.

but only by using scientific principles and empirical analysis

Such as? I must have not noticed you relying on these in your arguments before. Can you show me some examples of empirical analysis or empirical evidence backing your assertions, please?

You may think that, because you desire less of a change, you're automatically not utopian. Therefore, by that logic, I am utopian because I advocate much more proportionate degrees of change. That is bullshit. No offence.

I call your idea of this society Utopian because I don't believe it could ever be achieved, and I am still very confused about how you come to these conclusions about how people will act--people that you don't even know and have never met. What if a revolution never even occurs, Kam? The whole idea is a complete assumption of nonexistent variables.

On the other hand, the Libertarians at least present the actual legislative and poltical changes they want to occur. We have an agenda, a plan of action if we should ever come to power.

What do you have? You have a blueprint that is built on nothing in reality and only theoretical assumptions. Like I said, the entire thing is a total fantasy spawned from the popular movement of youthful idealism called punk rock.

At least, when we abide by scientific principles, it'll take more than mere postulation to discredit an arguement.

I have yet to see you employ any scientific principles in your blueprint for this anarchist society.

Yes, there are millions of "what if's" but if a philosophy is to be considered as credible, it has to make sense of its program by laying-out a blueprint for the society and answering common questions with the use of scientific reasoning.

Wrong. Marxism laid out a seemingly perfect plan for a perfect society. By this reasoning it is perhaps the most credible blueprint for society ever devised. Why then, has it failed so miserably in every country that has attempted to achieve at least some version of Marxism?

Millions of people died in dozens of revolutions and for what? For nothing, that's what. No permanent or worthwhile change occured, even though the plan was seemingly perfect. The Marxists didn't calculate into their plan the same thing you aren't calculating into yours, natural law, reality, and above all else, human behavior.

No matter how much you want a society to be a certain way, if it is not compatible with the way humans are behaving, there is nothing you can do about it. Your system will fail. Thus we have Marxism, thus we have anarchism. Both have been attempted several times, both have failed every time.

Your theoretical society would fail in no time if its implementation were ever attempted, because human nature is to strongly opposed to many of the foundational premises of your society.

The fact that the current state of societies is so far polarized from that of your ideal society is evidence enough of this point.

What would precipitate such desire to defend a given land mass?

History, my friend...history. It should be frighteningly obvious that humans have a tendancy to want to aquire more than just possessions, they have, through all time, aquired property. Why do you think we have so many government across the world protecting private property in the first place. If the popular masses were truly so vehemently opposed to it then I doubt it would have ever existed, and if it did, at least not for a very long period of time (certainly not as long as it has, which is basically all of civilized human history).

Forsooth, your guesses are garbage since their entire basis is founded upon presupposition.

Kam, I hate to break this to you, but your entire blueprint for this entire society is based upon presuppositions, therefore mine are just as valid as yours.

However, my basis has more scientific substantiation and reasoning, therefore more reliant.

Scientific substantiation? Such as...? The society that you propose doesn't exist, and never has, and never will. How is that scientific? How is that empirical?

To epitomize your logic, I'm going to presuppose that libertarianism will prompt a hostile takeover from a species transcending our galaxy. If a society becomes more autonomous and desirable, spectator alien species will invade our society due to its desirability. But hey, my guess is as good as yours.

Let's leave the alien invasion out of the picture until we finish the arguments based in reality, thanks.

In retrospect, past anarchist movements have functioned without any major theoretical problems.

Yeah...except for their ultimate and miserable failure!

The problem, however, is that a single national movement cannot overpower global imperialist forces.

And there's a reason that there hasn't been a global movement for anarchism, Kam. I'll let you think about that...

[Kamil]

I believe a person has a right to something he has produced with his labor, as well as the property that he lives on. People simply can't be allowed to come tromping through my house or making racket outside of it any time they want, since it is "the people's property." If there was no government backing my private property, I would back it myself. In other words, it wouldn't matter if it was anarchy or not I would defend that property.

An individual trespassing into one's house is a different situation than the one in which I am referring to, solely because it is not even likely for this person's house to intersect with another's use pattern. It isn't the case that it's the peoples' property, and yeah, I do believe in the individuals right to defend their property, however, property and possession greatly differ. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, "It is more useful to distinguish private ownership of property from private possession of property. The difference is not that one is idle while the other is used but rather how the property is being used. Possession of property is not synonymous with usage. It is based on occupancy and use. Not occupancy or use. If you are using the property for your own occupancy, it is possession." I also noted that the "gist of property is that it is a state-protected monopoly over the use of certain objects. If somebody were to use my property within the territorial region in which I have a state-protected monopoly of, I'd have power over the person violating my property rights. I can easily disallow any persons from occupying my premise." As noted by Infoshop, "Overall, property and possession is distinguished on the authority relations each generates."

You can justify defense over your private possession of property, for instance, a house, if it is being involved in either an expropriation or intrusion. Not only is this scenario likely since there is no legal regime in an anarchy to prevent such, I do believe that individual protection of possession of property is ideal if it is the right time. As one's house won't intersect with another's use pattern, people won't expect anyone to enter their house. It's not likely for someone to break into your house and to start watching television; if someone breaks in, it's usually for the purpose of expropriation. If I find someone on house premise, I'll inquire, "Who are you? get out" it'd be suitable to apply forceful measures if a prompted response entails refusal. One must ask the question, why would anyone trespass into another's house? What's the incentive? Don't think that just because there's no legal regime pumping peoples' brains with fear that people will automatically do this because its enabled without any definite guarantee of being able to get away with it. Take into consideration this: How does a person expect to be treated or greeted if they're mysteriously in another's home?

With a state-protected monopoly, it's pre-determined that anyone who will use any land will be forced off the premise under the consent of the owner. My initial example deals with land masses which are expected to attract usage such as open space. If some kids start playing volleyball near your lawn and accidentally take up a metre of the lawn, they are on your property and can be charged.

Now I have a question for you. You have mentioned that you must have some kind of blueprint for your ideas about society, so I am asking you what your blueprint says about possession turning into property in an anarchist society? In other words, what would prevent a social anarchist society of communes and cooperatives from evolving into an individualistic anarchist society such as anarcho-capitalism?

Well, if there's content and a corresponding consciousness to the economic basis of, preferably communism, I don't think we have to worry about a change of economic lifestyle. This also relates to the questions as to how would the arisal of a state be prevented. For the answer, flip back to some of my posts in the 'Other' forum.

I basically want to know this. How is it that without any authority your society will have the results which you have asserted on this forum on several occasions. What mechanisms in your "blueprint" convince you that these guarantees and predictions will indeed come about?

You have to understand that my implication and reference to authority is toward the anarchist movement as a whole and not individual cases. There are exceptions of authority being used. As I have already noted, if someone is stealing your possessions, it is natural that you will use authority to stop them. Does this prove a flaw in the system of anarchism? No. Not only is this scenario just pulled out of the blue and not likely to arise, it deals with personal instinct.

The piece will fall where they may. All we propose is a republic respecting certain laws, whatever happens after that is out of our hands. Similarly, after the destruction of the state or the existing authority by an anarchist revolution, the pieces will fall where they will, and it is out of your hands, and mine, anyone else's.

That does not suffice in telling me that libertarianism is tangible and efficient, it is mere postulation. You have not countered my arguement holding the fact that a third party, in America and during its status of a monolithic empire, will never be accomplished via election. Can you?

In your libertarian society, as the state only handles miniscule matters, it can be said that the people of this society can revolt. Better yet, it'll be an easy task for them since there is no force above society which indoctrinating the people to comply or ordering the preventance of this transition. The society can easily turn into an anarchy. What's stopping the people? A mere police force consisting of the individuals of society which will definately concur with the revolutionary masses? The thing is, all of these people adhere to what to their desired state. The same formulate can be applied to anarchism; people adhere to the society and its mainstream consciousness. It's not like there will be no organization in anarchism. In your desired minarchist state of society, take away the police forces and the contractual documents and the people can do whatever they want. It is only because a legal regime is present. It's only because people are in correspondence with their milieu and abide by the mainstream conception of things.

Such as? I must have not noticed you relying on these in your arguments before. Can you show me some examples of empirical analysis or empirical evidence backing your assertions please?

This scientific principle and examination is derived from the Marxist theory of superstructure holding that a society's economic basis and material surroundings determine man's consciousness. I apply this simple formula to any rendered scenarios since it is effective in the sense that it allows us to determine what kind of present consciousness would there be in a society of communist affiliation.

I call your idea of this society Utopian because I don't believe it could ever be achieved, and I am still very confused about how you come to these conclusions about how people will act, people that you don't even know and have never met. What if a revolution never even occurs, Kam? The whole idea is a complete assumption of nonexistent variables.

On the other hand, the Libertarians at least present the actual legislative and poltical changes they want to occur. We have an agends, a plan of action if we should ever come to power.

What do you have? You have a blueprint that is built on nothing in reality and only theoretical assumptions. Like I said, the entire thing is a total fantasy.

As I myself abide by certain Marxist principles of science and history, I believe that this "utopian" society is inevitable. As I noted in my former comment, utilizing Marx's theory of superstructure, I can estimate how people will act and react toward different scenarios on account of the society's economic relations amongst the people. In a sense, the "human nature" of a society. Unless you can present a viable counter of Marx's theory of superstructure, and perhaps historical materialism, if you're familiar with it, may I take your arguement seriously. If you look into the entire historical materialism, you'll understand why I feel a classless anarchist society is inevitable.

A revoluton will occur. Do you believe that the class-struggle is perpetual? Of course not. Maybe you'd like to present evidence suggesting that class-struggle is perpetual. Are you going to be able to do that?

Libertarians will never come into power via election. Anarchists, too, have displayed the desired changes they want to come about and have themselves an agenda. The libertarian means of coming into power are comical since no prominent empire will allow such a drastic marginalization of the state.

Wrong. Marxism laid out a seemingly perfect plan for a perfect society. By this reasoning it is perhaps the most credible blueprint for society ever devised. Why then, has it failed so miserably in every country that has attempted to achieve at least some version of Marxism?

If you were to ever browse any of my posts on the Communist board, you'd noticed that I'm a very anti-Marxist individual which has incessantly pinpointed the exact failures in the Marxist theory of Communist and proletarian revolution. Although I do adhere to certain constituents of the Marxism philosophy, my point of departure with the Marxists mainly deal with their assigned tasks for the proletariat subsequent and during
proletarian revolution. The state is designed specifically for the use of an elite minority; it is incomptable with majority manipulation. Each and everytime, the workers' state will precipitate oligarchic totalitarianism. Communist adherents will abide and comply with the program of this totalitarian state no matter what circumstances. By the time the proletariat come to the conclusion that they are not in power, they'll be too weakened to do anything about it themselves. In order for the proletariat to succeed, state utilization must be done away with and the people must organize themselves in a different manner.

The Marxists didn't calculate into their plant the same thing you aren't calculating into yours, natural law, reality, and above all else, human behavior.

It's common sense: Do you believe a single central institution such as the state is compatible with the manipulation of millions and millions of workers? The USSR does not discredit the ability for communism to function since it is included in Marxist thought that, communism will be applied following global revolution. Human behaviour is ephemeral and always will change in correspondence with its milieu.

No matter how much you want a society to be a certain way, if it is not compatible with the way humans are behaving at that time, there is nothing you can do about it. Your system will fail. Thus we have Marxism, thus we have anarchism. Both have been attempted several times, both have failed every time.

You're right in a sense. People are too different for anarchism to work now. I never claimed such, though. What I did and am claiming is that, the inherent dynamic of the class-struggle is to precipitate global revolution turning class society into classless society. As I, and many others, believe that capitalism is the final stage of the class-struggle, we believe that it's latent for another revolution to be prompted. It is you who is disregarding human history as human history has proven that such struggles breed revolution. It isn't until imperialism falls that revolution will be made possible.

And there's a reason that there hasn't been a global movement for anarchism, Kam. I'll let you think about that...

It's intangible at the moment due to the epoch of imperialism. How can a single nation deter off several various monolithic foreign empires? It isn't until they collapse in which revolution will be made possible. Whether there's a precipitated revolution in one of those milieus or if they financially collapse, therefore becoming powerless, a revolution will succeed.