<p>Re post #58: you’ll have a hard time finding Marxists and Anarchists at the University of Maine.</p>
<p>They also teach French Civilization courses in the language. It doesn’t make them French.</p>
<p>BTW, you folks should check out The Political Quadrant. Google it. A much more accurate and nuanced political identifier that recognizes that there are authoritarians on both ends of the spectrum.</p>
<p>
Europe tried that. It’s why all the Americans spend a semester abroad in Europe to drink and serious Europeans come to America for an education (with a few notable exceptions like Oxbridge etc, but those are indeed the exception to the rule of general mediocrity in European higher education)</p>
<p>Texas A&M, or the University of Chicago Economics Program</p>
<p>You might get some sense knocked into you.</p>
<p>“Actually, there is actually an anarcho-communist theory out there…I’m not entirely sure how it works, I thought the two were mutually exclusive too.”</p>
<p>When most people hear the word “communist” they think of marxism. Marxist communism is only one type of communism. Communism just means sharing resources.</p>
<p>In theory anarcho-communism means that resources would be shared and there would be no money. Rather than relying on centralized planning like marxist states anarcho-communism would use decentralized planning, meaning that groups run by democratic consensus at the bottom(the level where production is actually happening) would discuss with other groups what resources they needed and what they were able to produce to come to an agreement on how resources would be produced and moved. Some things would also be produced and put into storage in case they were needed. There would also probably be a lot of direct barter between people living closely together. Belonging to this network of communes or even belonging to a commune would be voluntary, since freedom of association is inherent to anarchism. However, you wouldn’t be allowed to exploit people (starting a factory, business, or anything else with a hierarchical chain of command would be out), though in practice the anarcho-communists would probably only stop you if your own workers wanted to democratize the workplace, or have property besides your personal possessions. You could build a fence over a large area of land and put a “No Tresspassing” sign there but because anarcho-communism doesn’t believe in property beyond personal possession in an anarcho-communist society people would just laugh and ignore your sign. You could live off the land by yourself, or start your own commune. Theoretically most people would find the benefits of the network strong enough to encourage them to join.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>lol, have you heard of collectivist anarchism?</p>
<p>Princeton Review ranked the following colleges as those with the most liberal students. While that is obviously not necessarily the same as radical anarchists, these would be schools where you would find a large proportion of students leaning far to the left:</p>
<ol>
<li>Occidental</li>
<li>Warren Wilson</li>
<li>Hampshire</li>
<li>New College </li>
<li>Bennington</li>
<li>Prescott</li>
<li>Clark</li>
<li>Bard</li>
<li>Brandeis</li>
<li>Sarah Lawrence</li>
<li>SUNY - Purchase</li>
<li>Marlboro</li>
<li>Haverford</li>
<li>Reed</li>
<li>Eugene Lang</li>
<li>Pitzer</li>
<li>Grinnell</li>
<li>Evergreen</li>
<li>Kenyon</li>
<li>Macalester</li>
</ol>
<p>When teenagers tell you that they are radical anarchists or Marxists, you need to take that with a large grain of salt. I think they are very rarely truly radical or anarchistic or Marxist in the literal sense of those words. What they really mean is that they are disaffected with the status quo, and have recently learned about alternatives that sound attractive to them. They will find plenty of like-minded people in schools such as the ones listed immediately above or mentioned in previous postings (minus the southern/Notre Dame references for those that are ironically challenged). Most will emerge from college understanding the difference between radicals/anarchists/Marxists and progressives/liberals.</p>
<p>Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t pure communism anarchical by definition? As in no government, etc etc?</p>
<p>Everyone in this thread needs to calm down. Respect their opinion(s) for goodness sakes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People often confuse theoretical communism and its totalitarian implementation.</p>
<p>The stupidity of people never ceases to amaze me. Communism and anarchism could not be more different. As stated above, anyone in favor of any of these practices, should leave and not be bothered to be educated by a fine institution becuase it obviously would not do any good to someone is so obviously disturbed. </p>
<p>In my definition, theft is not a stable form of government (communism) nor a moral view of life. Did you grow up in North Korea? Who brainwashed you into thinking you have a right to anyone else’s money and you should reward the unabled at the expense of the abled? I have no idea how any of these thoughts even remain in anyone sane.</p>
<p>capitalism works. if it aint broke, dont fix it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>tell that to tens of millions of unemployed americans.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It doesn’t work in most cases. In countries where it is “working”, the economy is getting increasingly regulated.</p>
<p>There’s no system out there that isn’t in need of more fixing.</p>
<p>I’d say capitalism works. The capitalists, on the other hand seem to like to screw things up.</p>
<p>“… most liberal students. While that is obviously not necessarily the same as radical anarchists …”</p>
<p>LOL. The most liberal are on the far left, radical anarchists on the far right. Not necessarily the same. ;)</p>
<p>I think the further you go on each side, the closer the two ideologies meet. But you usually have to go REALLY far, and most people aren’t that far.</p>
<p>In general, the two ideologies are pretty much opposite. But but but, there are crazies out there (crazier than normal communists and anarchists that is) who think that they are compatible:</p>
<p>Noam Chomsky is a good example of clowns like these.</p>
<p>[Politics</a> of Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Noam_Chomsky]Politics”>Political positions of Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia)
[Libertarian</a> socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism]Libertarian”>Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia)
[Anarchist</a> communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism]Anarchist”>Anarchist communism - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>It’s pretty obvious that TC doesn’t even know what the two words mean, but is just a rebellious little teenager trying to fit in.</p>
<p>I think we’re just getting ■■■■■■■ <_<. Move along, nothing to see here.</p>
<p>Although a free economy does work, we just don’t practice a completely free one, that shouldn’t be the issue. </p>
<p>When approaching an argument, one should note the moral and logic of the ideas presented. Spitting out consequences doesn’t work. there are a few problems with debating from a position of utilitarianism. In doing so, one implicitly accepts the basic premises of their opponent’s argument. It also confuses the real issue with superfluous quasi-issues. A metaphor to aid in understanding this concept is the following: Just because the Nazis could prove that killing 6 million people would result in food surpluses does not mean that it is justifiable to kill the Jews. Someone arguing from utilitarianism might suggest that killing the Jews might end up actually creating a food deficit because the food production of the Jews actually outweighed their consumption. Someone who actually analyzes the proposition would immediately point out that to even suggest killing 6 million people is outrageous regardless of the food surplus. This is of course an oversimplification, but it illustrates the point. Arguing from utilitarianism ignores the real proposition, e.g. the government controlling firearms or killing 6 million Jews, and instead morphs the argument into an argument of the consequences of the proposition. </p>
<p>So, this is why you’re wrong.</p>