Yes, so?

And his point is....

Like being a statist and a Stalinist was good or something. Which probably IS what Le Pen thinks, but he might want to avoid being labelled a Stalinist.

What do anarchists want and what would they do if they got it?

I am not being negative, I just want to understand.

There is even some debate about the root of the word, but it seems to come more or less from the negation of archon, the Greek for a king or chieftain, and what all these varieties have in common is that they aspire to a society without the domination of some by others. No archons.

William Godwin espoused "philosophical anarchism," holding that human society would be perfected to the point that there would be no need for government. P.J. Proudhon called himself an anarchist -- he wanted a society in which all organization would be based on mutual benefit. That seemed to him to mean that there would be no government, but he was unclear as a matter of principle. In the latter 19th century, a number of movements called for the revolutionary abolition of government. It must come as no surprise if people who value order very little disagreed with one another about many things. Some anarchists adopted terrorism as a strategy. Others were pacifist. (My mother classed herself as an anarchist pacifist. She was not an activist.) I don't believe anarchists have used terrorist strategies since about 1910, but some non-anarchists regard "anarchist" and "terrorist" as synonyms. Some anarchists in recent years have destroyed property -- sabotage -- a strategy known is "black bloc."

That helpful?

I have to say I don't agree with the view of anarchism at www.anarchism.net, which includes anarcho-capitalism as a type of anarchism. Traditionally, anarchism has always been anti-capitalist, including individualist anarchism. I know some people consider anarcho-capitalism/voluntaryism/Rothbardianism a new type of individualist anarchism, but I (and many others) don't agree with that. For the anti-capitalist anarchist view, I recommend this: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq

I agree that anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. Taking 1% demo's question as honest puzzlement -- in part because it really was off-topic -- I tried to offer a quicky answer. But I was in haste (5 minutes late for a hiring meeting) and probably too hasty in suggesting that site.

I have written elsewhere (in an even more obscure publication!) that RW libertarians are confused about property rights -- since all property rights 1) are state enforced, and 2) limit the freedom of every person except the proprietor. That confusion seems even greater in the case of anarcho-capitalists. They need to read Proudhon on property.

(As a social-democrat, I would argue that some property rights, including some state property rights, are unavoidable in a modern society. But they are restrictions on freedom, just as laws against murder are.)

Yeah, RW libertarians/anarcho-capitalists don't seem to understand that anarchists view private property completely differently, as theft from the commons instead of automatically rightfully belonging to the owning entity. Right-wingers in general seem to ignore historical realities such as land enclosures, displacement of peasants and independent tradespeople into wage labor, genocide, and slavery that caused the commons that originally everyone had access to to become privatized in the first place, and just assume that the ownership is legitimate, just like they pretend that other inequalities are somehow just.

Today, I was trying to think of a good "elevator speech" answer to describe anarchism and I came up with this:

"Anarchism is radical anti-authoritarianism, against all systems that oppress people and that create a ruling class, who own almost all the land, capital and productive property, decide what laws are written, and whose interests are the primary ones protected and represented by the state."

I dunno if I'd ever have the presence of mind to remember all that on an elevator, though.

This is a comprehensive intro to anarchism that has been around for a while:

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq

I'm not a Boshevik, but Trotsky looks pretty good next to LePen.

!!

Probably the first time he does not lie.

knowing he was supporting them.

So it's funny he's shot his mouth off like this.
Ms Le Pen:

Then the "them" is not solely Islamic militants, but anyone who wishes to divide us, including far-right groups, media outlets and politicians seeking to use these attacks as a wedge issue for political gain. It's almost as if at times, these two apparently disparate groups are not that dissimilar in their aims, almost as if they're working together to accomplish the same goals (but for vastly different reasons).

And "us" is everyone else who truly treasures freedom, civil liberties, the protection of minorities, and the respect of all races, gender and religion, regardless of whether we're Christians, Atheists, Jews or Muslims (and many other religions too, of course).

No translation necessary.

Or in alternate editions? 'Cause those are pretty much ideologically incompatible positions.

are so f*cking stupid.

changing their tune. It's almost as if they said all of those things without any basis in fact.

But you, not a Muslim, have declared multiple times this is not so.

I have learned over the years from reading/posting on DU that it isn't up to someone outside a minority group to dictate what is or is not considered bigoted, hateful, racist.

As to what is hateful to any group. It does not give them the right to throw a piece of paper at someone, let alone murder them.

We still have a few here stridently asserting the original party line.

The more your daughter tries to cover up the fascist nature of the National Front, the more you can't help but run your mouth and undercut her. It's like watching karma for idiots.

Some more moderate French call Charlie Hebdo's editors “laïcards,” a pejorative term applied to the most strident ideologues of laïcité, especially those on the otherwise tolerant left. In 2012, the French sociologist and political scientist Vincent Geisser told the newspaper Libération that he saw “a form of secular Salafism,” an ultra-conservative strain of Sunni Islam, in Charlie Hebdo’s worldview. “Charlie Hebdo is only looking to impose its secular purity by treating everyone else as fanatics,” Geisser said. Such criticism is perhaps less palatable, but no less legitimate, in the wake of Wednesday's killings. Similar critiques have begun to appear online, under the counter-hashtag #JeNeSuisPasCharlie, or “I am not Charlie.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-secularism-religion-islam/384413/

it's about neither--it's about those who pick up guns and kill over any excuse.

That's why people who never enjoyed the magazine are marching in defense of freedom of expression and against terrorism

Just absolute garbage.