Anarchism

Bi0Hazard: Anarchism is also a left-wing ideology, it favors abolition of the state for maximizing social freedom, while advocating the formation of collectives. Private property is replaced.

Most of the anarchist community is in favor of private property, voluntaryism, and capitalism. I have listened to just about every obscure anarchist punk band out there, and watched/read the teachings of every other anarchist philosopher.

Anarchism is about self governing and collective ownership is part of this. Here is an example from Wikipedia:
Don't states advocate collective ownership of land by a group of people? Seems anarchism is just the opposite.

Anarchists oppose capitalism and private property.
Only anarcho-communists do, get it through your head.

Anarchist economics is the set of theories and practices of economic activity within the political philosophy of anarchism. As a rule, anarchists are anti-capitalists.

I've read that page before. All the changes to the first paragraph and economics subsection were changed last month.

The dedicated editors are idiots, which you will notice if you read the talk page. In edition, there are two groups of people on that page who keep erasing each others work and writing over.

That is why wikipedia is not an accurate source m8

Also the dedicated editors are restricting anyone from changing their work, because they wrongly believe that anarchism is only communistic. These fools literally overridden a good article and covered it with false BS. I also figured out that the dedicated editors are obviously anarcho-communist (wow)

Anyways, I fixed the article. It has no more anarcho-communist promotion and bias, and does not actively attempt to exclude and discredit other economic systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_economics

Crow: NVM, the robots deleted it due to all the content I deleted. I am going to make sure it stays up though.

Crow: Some people have too much time on their hands... :

admin: Given how a page like that could give thousands of people false information about an ideology, I do not consider it a waste of time trying to fix it.

admin: They are economic/social positions, political philosophies may advocate an economic system. Anarchism is a left-wing ideology.
When I say "right-wing or left-wing", I mean the nolan chart, here it is:

or

Bi0Hazard: So I don't mind it when you call anarchism left wing. That is a matter of debate (I have heard it called right wing more, but I don't believe it can be easily classified as either)

When you say that the only anarchist economics viewpoint is communal is just outright false though, because all it takes is to read a couple damn books on the subject, from actual anarchists.

All you got going for you is a wikipedia article with that claim.

Crow: Most of the anarchist community is in favor of private property, voluntaryism, and capitalism. I have listened to just about every obscure anarchist punk band out there, and watched/read the teachings of every other anarchist philosopher.
This isn't the anarchist political philosophy, they may favor the abolition of the state, but the anarchist ideology is more than that.
Anarchism has a goal like communism, a similar one. The fact is that anarchists oppose private property, also private property is state-protected, so private property is enforced/protected by the state which makes it incompatible with anarchism.
Here is a site to explain a bit: http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionB3
Private property is one of the three things all anarchists oppose, along side hierarchical authority and the state.
The statement "property is theft" is one of anarchism's most famous sayings. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that anyone who rejects this statement is not an anarchist. This maxim works in two related ways. Firstly, it recognises the fact that the earth and its resources, the common inheritance of all, have been monopolised by a few. Secondly, it argues that, as a consequence of this, those who own property exploit those who do not. This is because those who do not own have to pay or sell their labour to those who do own in order to get access to the resources they need to live and work (such as workplaces, machinery, land, credit, housing, products under patents, and such like -- see section B.3.2 for more discussion). - See more at: http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionB3#sthash.ujCGBcoL.dpuf

I have listened to just about every obscure anarchist punk band out there, and watched/read the teachings of every other anarchist philosopher.

I have no doubt you studied it much, but your looking at it differently. You think that anarchism is just about abolishing the state when it is actually a political philosophy.
Here is another site: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-03-17
Here is the anarchist view on private property:
Anarchists define “private property” (or just “property,” for short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to control and exploit others.

Bi0Hazard: Okay, so I have two words to described your argument.... Biased and POV

Now I have one fallacy to put everything into perspective.... No true scotsman

Instead of reading articles from anarcho-communists that attempt to generalize all anarchists as believing the same thing, try reading an actual definition.

a state of society without government or law.

If someone is claiming general anarchism is anything more than that, they are wrong.

Crow: Here is what anarchism is:
belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.
You need more than just no state, you have to have a plan. Anarchism is a plan, so cooperative ownership with no hierarchical authority, private property, or the state.
The definition you gave me is the definition of anarchy, not anarchism(which is a political philosophy).
the ism at the end means:
a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement.

Bi0Hazard: belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

A different definition saying more or less the same thing. The abolition of government and voluntary organization. Nothing about sharing land or abolishing money.

You need more than just no state, you have to have a plan.

There are no plans. There is just what happens naturally.

People have preferences, and those preferences are considered sub-ideologies.

Anarchism is a plan, so cooperative ownership with no hierarchical authority, private property, or the state.

Stop repeating yourself and say something substantive.

It is kind of funny though that you think anarchy would have a constitution and a framework.

Crow: The anarchist ideology is not a very complicated one, but its more than no state. Anarchism proposes anarchy and no authority. They consider private property to exploit others. The point I am making is that anarchism is a political philosophy. You can disagree if you want, but that's what it is.

Bi0Hazard:
They consider private property to exploit others.

For gods sake, have you ever talked to anarchists to ask what they believe? I know that community well. Your attempts to generalize anarchism into one specified philosophy is completely ludicrous.

Where are all these absurd and baseless claims coming from? The big book of bs that exists only inside your head, or all the fallacious POV sources you posted?

Go to an anarchist community and try to peddle this POV generalized bullshit.

I decided to revive this thread because I have things I am wondering about Anarchism.
How would a murder be dealt with in an anarchy?
How would the military be in an anarchy?
What about speed limits and roads?
What if someone tries to establish a government?

Bi0Hazard: How would a murder be dealt with in an anarchy?

There would be no standard. Think of all the ways murder has been handled in the past without police and jail systems.

In extreme cases it has been execution. If it were believed to be an isolated killing, such as an honor killing, people would just ignore it. In other communities, a killer would simply be banished.

Honestly I don't care much. If I felt someone was a threat to me, then I would band with other like-minded individuals to resolve the problem. If I didn't feel that way, then I would ignore it.

How would the military be in an anarchy?

Non-established and able to be co-existent with other armed groups which do not attempt to establish themselves.

What about speed limits and roads?

In the past, if communities needed to get from one point to another, they would build a road themselves. There probably wouldn't be a speed limit, but that doesn't mean people wouldn't judge you if you drived crazily.

What if someone tries to establish a government?

Governments and anarchy are not actually mutually exclusive.

If someone succeeded in establishing a state, then it would no longer be anarchy. If they were stopped, then it would continue to be anarchy.

Crow: Governments and anarchy are not actually mutually exclusive.
I mean state, I mix up the two a lot.
So yeah, you answered all but one: What if someone tries to establish a state?
I guess I kinda know now, just crush them with a militia.

Bi0Hazard: That's what I would do anyways. Unless they were harmless and no one listened to them. Freedom needs to be fought for.

BTW, it can be an army. It doesn't have to be a militia.