How do you deal with people who won't work?

But thats not the right thing to do. Everyone should be guaranteed what they need to live, otherwise how are we so different from the anarcho-individualists, or for that matter, capitalism?

The only thing I'll guarantee 'come the revolution' is that nobody's leeching off my hard graft ever again, be it the 'capitalist elite' or work shy 'anarchist' freeloader.

So you're not an anarcho-communist then...

:red:

I'm a realist. If I was the only person in the world I would have to 'work' to sustain myself, be it gathering food, crowing crops or hunting.

Now if I meet up with another individual, and we chose to set up a co-operative partnership, I would expect both of us to work as hard as each other to achieve whatever it is we are aiming at. That is my idea of anarchism.

Am I wrong?

Well thats exactly it. No rules. If a person was so lazy, so obnoxious, such a drain on the community then they could vote to throw him out. Although i'd like to think that people would recognise the greater good they were working to, and exile wouldnt be nessecary.

But i could never approve of anarchy as a machiavellian struggle to survive, you can see that in Haiti or Iraq right now, and its not worth fighting for. People deserve to live and be supported, within reason.

The problem is that if no one wants to work then forcing them to can't be classed as fair...But even if there was an anarchist revolution in Britain, then not everyone would be an anarchist, so they wouldn't all agree with the same views. What would people do with the middle-classes? The posh private school kids who think that "Marmy and Dardy say that the Queen's a very good woman, she rules us very well" etc, and worship Margaret Thatcher as a heroine, where would they be?

Yeah, exactly. If middle class people wanted to work with us, then that would be fine. It would be a classless society, so middle class people ould just be people. If they didnt want to work with us, then i guess they'd just be left to sort something out for themselves. If they wanted to fight, then they'd be killed.

To be honest, i can never see an entire nation dissolving into anarchy. I think what would probably happen is that a sympathetic socialist state would allow anarchy to exist in certain areas, and then the concept would spread until either the socialist state dissolved, or the anarchists overthrew it. Anarchy needs to be presented as a working model so that people will see how good it is and emulate it themselves.