The revolution in Bhutan is wonderful news. However, it is pushed to a back seat by the huge Anarchist Problem argument. By looking over the forums (I have been taking a break from this AAR ATM) it seems a full blown civil war might occur!
The suggested civil war will only occur if everyone continues to berate the anarchists and force us further and further into a corner. I can guarantee that if every single Socialist, UC, and Marxist dares not say a single negative phrase against the anarchists until the next update then there will be no civil war.The revolution in Bhutan is wonderful news. However, it is pushed to a back seat by the huge Anarchist Problem argument. By looking over the forums (I have been taking a break from this AAR ATM) it seems a full blown civil war might occur!
The revolution in Bhutan is wonderful news. However, it is pushed to a back seat by the huge Anarchist Problem argument. By looking over the forums (I have been taking a break from this AAR ATM) it seems a full blown civil war might occur!
Comrades, my trigger finger is getting quite itchy!
And it will continue to be so, unless you plan to cause unecessary violence that won't solve anything.
Hence the wink brother. Lighten up, the Marxists will crumble soon enough!
I and many other Anarchists will do the same. I have very little faith that the number of "radically violent" Anarchists is above a handful of ambitious minds eager to start conflict to make a name for themselves.Like scholar said, if you keep poking the bear with the stick, then yes, the bear is going to get pissed off and try to eat your hand.
Keep all the anti-Anarchist rhetoric off, and we won't do anything. Or, at the very least, I won't; I can't speak for the others.
Keep all the anti-Anarchist rhetoric off, and we won't do anything. Or, at the very least, I won't; I can't speak for the others.
Might I kindly ask that the Anarchists do the same?
Just wondering here, but if you want a free press why exactly are you banning criticism of yourselves under threat of violence? I realise the imbalance of rhetoric from the UC does seem to have been against the Anarchists , but that was because you were frequently in second or first place, while the Marxists trailed behind. Oversensetivity to criticism won't get you far once comrade Engels has freed the presses and ALL can have their voices heard. I personally have tried to criticise the Blanquists just as much, but when you are debating mostly Anarchists it is difficult. There was a poor showing in the debating hall as in the election for the Blanquists.[[And anyway, you here in the thread have no control over whether there's a civil war or not ]]The suggested civil war will only occur if everyone continues to berate the anarchists and force us further and further into a corner. I can guarantee that if every single Socialist, UC, and Marxist dares not say a single negative phrase against the anarchists until the next update then there will be no civil war.
Just wondering here, but if you want a free press why exactly are you banning criticism of yourselves under threat of violence? I realise the imbalance of rhetoric from the UC does seem to have been against the Anarchists , but that was because you were frequently in second or first place, while the Marxists trailed behind. Oversensetivity to criticism won't get you far once comrade Engels has freed the presses and ALL can have their voices heard. I personally have tried to criticise the Blanquists just as much, but when you are debating mostly Anarchists it is difficult. There was a poor showing in the debating hall as in the election for the Blanquists.[[And anyway, you here in the thread have no control over whether there's a civil war or not ]]
That's because the Marxist-Centralist alliance has set policies, whereas the anarchists don't even know what their own policies are! The only thing they can seem to agree on is that they want a "free" (read: anarchist) press and that they hate Blanqui.
What's funny is how the anarchists keep on insisting that their extremism is caused by the Marxists and Centralists, and that if these two parties go away they wouldn't be extremists anymore. Please.
That's one of the things I like about the Anarchists. As a former Marxist, I have to say that the increasing ideological homogeneity, and the idea that if we did not all beilieve the same thing we would be berated by Blanqui, was one of the main reasons I left. Homogeneity leads to stagnation, and in this world, stagnation leads to death.
I disagree, under the Marxists Marx or whoever the Chairman was would tell us what they were going to do, and then they would do it. When the Marxists promised social reforms they did them, and our people's standards of living improved. When they went to expand our territory, they did, and the lot of the liberated people improved. Homogenity leads to stability, erraticism leads to instability and in this world, instability leads to death.
That's because the Marxist-Centralist alliance has set policies, whereas the anarchists don't even know what their own policies are! The only thing they can seem to agree on is that they want a "free" (read: anarchist) press and that they hate Blanqui.
What's funny is how the anarchists keep on insisting that their extremism is caused by the Marxists and Centralists, and that if these two parties go away they wouldn't be extremists anymore. Please.