Can an anarchist win a Democratic presidential nomination?

[Suburbia]

Can a far left anarchist win a Democratic presidential nomination in the future, based on the how the anarchists are so aligned with left-wing causes?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

No.

[Santander]

If they were a minority transgender Muslim, yes.

[Suburbia]

No.

Why not? They align with the far-left.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

No.

Why not? They align with the far-left.

Do they even vote?

[Suburbia]

No.

Why not? They align with the far-left.

Do they even vote?

They could nominate a candidate who aligns with them.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

>snort<

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Yes, if and only if they could get the Black vote.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Well, an anarchist would support no government intervention in the economy (ultra-capitalism), so probably not.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

No.

Why not? They align with the far-left.

Do they even vote?

They could nominate a candidate who aligns with them.

How could they do that if they don't vote?

Well, an anarchist would support no government intervention in the economy (ultra-capitalism), so probably not.

That's what one would naturally assume (and Anarcho-Capitalists believe that).  But the Anarcho-Communists legitimately believe that if there is no government everyone will live in a magical fantasy land where there is no poverty, no war, etc.  Without government, however, I'm not sure how they plan on forcing the rich to give up their wealth.

You might have never heard of Anarcho-Capitalists, and that's because they don't riot.

[Cashew]

No.

[GoTfan]

Not really. Actually, absolutely not.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

When your ideology is based on opposition to the existence of politics, I don't see why not.

[PMHub]

Probably not. The Dems are all about government intervention as a force for good, and ararchists are... well, not.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Libertarians are anarchists.  Howard Dean calls himself a libertarian, and he almost won the nomination in 2004.  But it probably won't happen again.

[Santander]

Libertarians are anarchists.  Howard Dean calls himself a libertarian, and he almost won the nomination in 2004.  But it probably won't happen again.

Interesting definition of almost.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Libertarians are anarchists.  Howard Dean calls himself a libertarian, and he almost won the nomination in 2004.  But it probably won't happen again.

Interesting definition of almost.

Well he was the frontrunner for a while.

[5280]

Correction, it should be Anarcho-Socialist...

[Intell]

Well, an anarchist would support no government intervention in the economy (ultra-capitalism), so probably not.

Considering Anarchism have been throughout history, a leftist concept, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

[Intell]

No.

Why not? They align with the far-left.

Do they even vote?

They could nominate a candidate who aligns with them.

How could they do that if they don't vote?

Well, an anarchist would support no government intervention in the economy (ultra-capitalism), so probably not.

That's what one would naturally assume (and Anarcho-Capitalists believe that).  But the Anarcho-Communists legitimately believe that if there is no government everyone will live in a magical fantasy land where there is no poverty, no war, etc.  Without government, however, I'm not sure how they plan on forcing the rich to give up their wealth.

You might have never heard of Anarcho-Capitalists, and that's because they don't riot.

Anarcho-Capitalism, is a false term, as Anarchism is a society in without hierarchy, capitalism is of inherently a system of hierarchy. Anarchism is a system, in where people get rid of their possessions, and it is owned by the community, first and foremost, and as such the society is run without a leader, but as a collective.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

No.

Why not? They align with the far-left.

Do they even vote?

They could nominate a candidate who aligns with them.

How could they do that if they don't vote?

Well, an anarchist would support no government intervention in the economy (ultra-capitalism), so probably not.

That's what one would naturally assume (and Anarcho-Capitalists believe that).  But the Anarcho-Communists legitimately believe that if there is no government everyone will live in a magical fantasy land where there is no poverty, no war, etc.  Without government, however, I'm not sure how they plan on forcing the rich to give up their wealth.

You might have never heard of Anarcho-Capitalists, and that's because they don't riot.

Anarcho-Capitalism, is a false term, as Anarchism is a society in without hierarchy, capitalism is of inherently a system of hierarchy. Anarchism is a system, in where people get rid of their possessions, and it is owned by the community, first and foremost, and as such the society is run without a leader, but as a collective.

Anarchy just means no government.  And without government, how does one force people to give up their property?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

No.

Why not? They align with the far-left.

Do they even vote?

They could nominate a candidate who aligns with them.

How could they do that if they don't vote?

Well, an anarchist would support no government intervention in the economy (ultra-capitalism), so probably not.

That's what one would naturally assume (and Anarcho-Capitalists believe that).  But the Anarcho-Communists legitimately believe that if there is no government everyone will live in a magical fantasy land where there is no poverty, no war, etc.  Without government, however, I'm not sure how they plan on forcing the rich to give up their wealth.

You might have never heard of Anarcho-Capitalists, and that's because they don't riot.

Anarcho-Capitalism, is a false term, as Anarchism is a society in without hierarchy, capitalism is of inherently a system of hierarchy. Anarchism is a system, in where people get rid of their possessions, and it is owned by the community, first and foremost, and as such the society is run without a leader, but as a collective.

Anarchy just means no government.  And without government, how does one force people to give up their property?

I certainly have numerous disagreements with anarcho-capitalism, but I don't even get the concept behind anarcho-communism.  Why would people voluntarily give up all their stuff to the community?  The voluntary socialism part makes no sense at all.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

No.

Why not? They align with the far-left.

Do they even vote?

They could nominate a candidate who aligns with them.

How could they do that if they don't vote?

Well, an anarchist would support no government intervention in the economy (ultra-capitalism), so probably not.

That's what one would naturally assume (and Anarcho-Capitalists believe that).  But the Anarcho-Communists legitimately believe that if there is no government everyone will live in a magical fantasy land where there is no poverty, no war, etc.  Without government, however, I'm not sure how they plan on forcing the rich to give up their wealth.

You might have never heard of Anarcho-Capitalists, and that's because they don't riot.

Anarcho-Capitalism, is a false term, as Anarchism is a society in without hierarchy, capitalism is of inherently a system of hierarchy. Anarchism is a system, in where people get rid of their possessions, and it is owned by the community, first and foremost, and as such the society is run without a leader, but as a collective.

Anarchy just means no government.  And without government, how does one force people to give up their property?

I certainly have numerous disagreements with anarcho-capitalism, but I don't even get the concept behind anarcho-communism.  Why would people voluntarily give up all their stuff to the community?  The voluntary socialism part makes no sense at all.

Ancoms want complete liberty and complete equality at the same time.

[Intell]

No.

Why not? They align with the far-left.

Do they even vote?

They could nominate a candidate who aligns with them.

How could they do that if they don't vote?

Well, an anarchist would support no government intervention in the economy (ultra-capitalism), so probably not.

That's what one would naturally assume (and Anarcho-Capitalists believe that).  But the Anarcho-Communists legitimately believe that if there is no government everyone will live in a magical fantasy land where there is no poverty, no war, etc.  Without government, however, I'm not sure how they plan on forcing the rich to give up their wealth.

You might have never heard of Anarcho-Capitalists, and that's because they don't riot.

Anarcho-Capitalism, is a false term, as Anarchism is a society in without hierarchy, capitalism is of inherently a system of hierarchy. Anarchism is a system, in where people get rid of their possessions, and it is owned by the community, first and foremost, and as such the society is run without a leader, but as a collective.

Anarchy just means no government.  And without government, how does one force people to give up their property?

I certainly have numerous disagreements with anarcho-capitalism, but I don't even get the concept behind anarcho-communism.  Why would people voluntarily give up all their stuff to the community?  The voluntary socialism part makes no sense at all.

Ancoms want complete liberty and complete equality at the same time.

Anarchism means no government, I think in an anarchist society, as was done in Anarchist Catalonia, an worker's militia, takes over a workforce, and makes it part of something owned publicly by workers and the community.

There have been leftist anarchist society throughout history (they have existed for certain years, but have been destroyed due to external forces.), and the end goal of communism, is a society with no state and government.

[Intell]

There was an article on anarcho-communism.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/18adj9/how_would_anarchocommunism_work/