No, he got it completely and utterly wrong, and so did you. Anarchism means "without a leader/ruler," not a complete lack of organisation. Anarchism strives for an organisational system that is non-hierarchical and employs participatory democratic practices to ensure the people have a say in how their lives are governed more than once every four years (or however many years it may be between elections, wherever you are). Consider Anarchist Catalonia: they were anarchist syndicalists, which if you'd like to think about it another way essentially consists of a confederation of communes.
For some perspective, consider reading "The Kingdom of God is Within You" by Tolstoy.
What is this tripe? Are you for real?
Your sarcasm isn't appreciated. Read Orwell's account of Anarchist Catalonia.
Am I actually hearing this from a Christian? "Just strike and bring down x for no reason other than because it's evil" ? - this might as well be a hobby of Christian fundamentalists.
EDIT: and define evil. Socialists don't use that term very often in this context, and I'd like to know why you are.
Anarchy != no organisation. Anarchist Catalonia was an incredibly successful society (I'd say state, except it wasn't one) I'd expect you to at least know the definition of anarchism before you start spouting lies about it.
That's because the Franco and the fascists came in and murdered them all. And then Spain was a fascist nation until Franco died roughly 35 years later.
ARMED arnachrist?! by violence they did that. tell me again why havent you espoused that?
Often I used to gaze round the wintry landscape and marvel at the futility of it all. The inconclusiveness of such a kind of war! Earlier, about October, there had been savage fighting for all these hills; then, because the lack of men and arms, especially artillery, made any large-scale operation impossible, each army had dug itself in and settled down on the hill-tops it had won. Over to our right there was a small outpost, also P.O.U.M., and on the spur to our left, at seven o'clock of us, a P.S.U.C. position faced a taller spur with several small Fascist posts dotted on its peaks. The so-called line zigzagged to and fro in a pattern that would have been quite unintelligible if every position had not flown a flag. The P.O.U.M. and P.S.U.C. flags were red, those of the Anarchists red and black; the Fascists generally flew the monarchist flag (red-yellow-red), but occasionally they flew the flag of the Republic (red-yellow-purple). The scenery was stupendous, if you could forget that every mountain-top was occupied by troops and was therefore littered with tin cans and crusted with dung. To the right of us the sierra bent south-eastwards and made way for the wide, veined valley that stretched across to Huesca. In the middle of the plain a few tiny cubes sprawled like a throw of dice; this was the town of Robres, which was in Loyalist possession. Often in the mornings the valley was hidden under seas of cloud, out of which the hills rose flat and blue, giving the landscape a strange resemblance to a photographic negative. Beyond Huesca there were more hills of the same formation as our own, streaked with a pattern of snow which altered day by day. In the far distance the monstrous peaks of the Pyrenees, where the snow never melts, seemed to float upon nothing. Even down in the plain everything looked dead and bare. The hills opposite us were grey and wrinkled like the skins of elephants. Almost always the sky was empty of birds. I do not think I have ever seen a country where there were so few birds. The only birds one saw at any time were a kind of magpie, and the coveys of partridges that startled one at night with their sudden whirring, and, very rarely, the flights of eagles that drifted slowly over, generally followed by rifle-shots which they did not deign to notice
yup a peacful lot eh?
thanks for proving my point it cant be done without violence!
think about it the rich are just going to yeild there wealth.?
i thought anarchy were peaceful?
have you actually been to war? if they organised then that means you have to have someone to lead. a mob of guys with guns that just attack a building isnt a organised force by no means.
you mean this?
At this time and until much later the Catalan militias were still on the same basis as they had been at the beginning of the war. In the early days of Franco's revolt the militias had been hurriedly raised by the various trade unions and political parties; each was essentially a political organization, owing allegiance to its party as much as to the central Government. When the Popular Army, which was a ‘non-political’ army organized on more or less ordinary lines, was raised at the beginning of 1937, the party militias were theoretically incorporated in it. But for a long time the only changes that occurred were on paper; the new Popular Army troops did not reach the Aragon front in any numbers till June, and until that time the militia-system remained unchanged. The essential point of the system was social equality between officers and men. Everyone from general to private drew the same pay, ate the same food, wore the same clothes, and mingled on terms of complete equality. If you wanted to slap the general commanding the division on the back and ask him for a cigarette, you could do so, and no one thought it curious. In theory at any rate each militia was a democracy and not a hierarchy. It was understood that orders had to be obeyed, but it was also understood that when you gave an order you gave it as comrade to comrade and not as superior to inferior. There were officers and N.C.O.S. but there was no military rank in the ordinary sense; no titles, no badges, no heel-clicking and saluting. They had attempted to produce within the militias a sort of temporary working model of the classless society. Of course there was no perfect equality, but there was a nearer approach to it than I had ever seen or than I would have thought conceivable in time of war.
ha. lets see the russian model there most effective army.lol the one that couldnt seem to hold afghanistan
btw i'm nco and we only pull rank when we have to in war. no locking of heels.
its the american model of doing it the private should know my job and take the reigns when i'm dead. and when i give orders its not as a superior being but as someone who has the right to lead by knowledge and he obeys it as he has to by the fact he hasnt earned that right yet. i am not better then him, in fact if a lower ranking man knows something he gets to teach and share his knowledge. its called survival.
interesting i bet that so called model of yours there is just as much the same as my army.
did said militia vote to take a hill? no i think not i bet some leader said this is our objective.and they said we will take it that hill.lol the army is brotherhood at times and thought not perfect its a lot better than you think on equality then you think. sure theres the rhip thing but i bet that if the anarchists had a man who save thier buts a few times they tend put him on higher level of respect and his voice carried weight over some newbie foot soldier.
:
