Which ideology will play a bigger role in the 21st century?

[Idealism]

I had no idea where to put this. Anyway, question: which political system will play a bigger role in the 21st century; anarchism or marxism?

[mykittyhasaboner]

I say Marxism.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I would also say Marxism despite the growing figure of anarchists.

[Brother No. 1]

I'd say Marxism despite the growing of anarchists and Anarchism. But this is my view so this is my oppion.

[Invincible Summer]

Although I'd like it to be anarchism... more people know about Marxism and individualist/lifestylist Anarchists give us a bad image.

[Dimentio]

I say that anarchism will probably gobble up marxism, keep some parts of marxism, but scrap vanguardism and the idea of the political party.

[FreeFocus]

Well, I think it depends. With clearer, more substantive theory and more effective application, anarchism can solve the problems people of the world face by putting the power directly in their hands. Anarchism has more potential than Marxism, but unless the preconditions above are not realized, Marxism will continue to be more relevant.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

Marxism because the proletarian world revolution will come this century.Finaly.

[F9]

Marxism because the proletarian world revolution will come this century.Finaly.

Anarchists too are up for a proletarian world revolution, of course other current classes wont be "disqualified" but proletarian is going to def be the vast majority and that the "natural" thing.

Fuserg9:star:

[Armand Iskra]

I would say Marxism, but for me MAOISM. As the first world off exploiters fell, the third world of the exploited will rise!

MONKEY SMASHES HEAVEN

[Cynical Observer]

anarchism, it's represented more in the culture and it doesn't posses quite the same stigma as marxism, which means it will attract more interest from those on the fence, and most capitalists see it as a joke rather than a threat so they may overlook it until there's ample force to conduct a revolution

[ComradeOm]

It depends. Anarchism is clearly more suited to the issues-based and fragmented gauchiste politics of the last half century. In contrast Marxism is far more dependent on the material conditions for a mass workers' movement re-emerging. You can't have a revolutionary party in a non-revolutionary environment

So my crystal ball is telling me to hedge my bets

[Os Cangaceiros]

Perhaps Marxism.

However, I feel that (if it is Marxism) it will be a Marxism strongly influenced by anarchism, if for no other reason than to distance itself from the repressive "Marxism" of the past.

[S.O.I]

id say anarchist-marxism or marxist-anarchism.

[teenagebricks]

They will both play pretty big roles, I'd be inclined to slide towards anarchism because more Marxists seem to be taking influence from anarchists these days.

[Chapter 24]

There is absolutely no telling which ideology will gain the most influence and outcome in this century. We're leftists, not psychics with a crystal ball, and as such we must focus on the material realities in which we live in and not focus strictly on ideology.
Oh yes, the studying of theory and the history of past revolutions is certainly necessary in order to learn from past flaws and to maintain a strong revolutionary base - but there is no reason to treat each these seperate camps of ideology as enemies. On the contrary, ideology means nothing when many people are going to bed hungry at night, devoid of healthcare, housing, decent living conditions. Squabbles between the Marxists and anarchists should not and more importantly can not distract us from what really matters: current struggles that affect the living conditions of the proletariat and the eventual emancipation of the working class.
Parties, tendencies, internationales, syndicates, these all have their moment in the sun and they argue between one another - but many of these groups eventually disolve, have a split, or eventually focus more on matters within these groups, while the working class continues to struggle under the oppressive hand of the bourgeoisie.

[Communist Theory]

Trotskyism!!! :lol:

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I think it will be Anarchism. I'm trying to be unbias here, from what i've heard from recent events like the 28th March march, 1st of April, Strasbourg, Fred Goodwins windows, Visteon it seems like Anarchists not Marxists have been out in more numbers and have been the main leftist influence in these events. I feel Anarchism as a movement is growing and will become the more influential ideology in this century.

[robbo203]

Depends what you mean by marxism of course. If you (mis)associate that with Leninism then I think that kind of "marxism" has had its day. Its stuck in a rut with no way out. I prefer to think in terms of trying to recapture the original intent and spirit of marxism which to my way of thinking is actually much closer to anarchism than is sometimes given credit for. One reason why I prefer to call myself an anarcho-communist I guess. It emphasises the fact that we reject statism as much as the market. The ugly twin sisters of capitalism

[pastradamus]

In my own honest opinion its got to be Marxism. Its had more of an influence than Anarchism ten-fold over the last 100 years. I cant see things changing much in that sense.

[Antioch]

Since no one can really agree what anarchism really is, I'm inclined to go with Marxism. As a whole, anarchist movements seem to rely more on the youth and petite bourgeoisie, which never have the stomach or motivation for a prolonged revolution.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Despite what we vote, I think that Marxism had it's run in the 20th century and people have become disillusioned with it. With the growing love affair between the State and Wall St., the growing power of the E.U., the networking being done through the internet and so-forth I think anarchist politics is going to flourish... the huge support Ron Paul received in '08 shows it.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Despite what we vote, I think that Marxism had it's run in the 20th century and people have become disillusioned with it. With the growing love affair between the State and Wall St., the growing power of the E.U., the networking being done through the internet and so-forth I think anarchist politics is going to flourish... the huge support Ron Paul received in '08 shows it.

What the hell does Ron Paul support have to do with anarchism?

[Rosa Provokateur]

What the hell does Ron Paul support have to do with anarchism?
A good number of libertarians and people fresh to politics got behind him and there was a pretty good anarchist backing for him too, this shows that people are interested in the idea of small government and that's a step in the right direction.

[Raúl Duke]

pretty good anarchist backing for him too,Then he's not an anarchist.
No consistent anarchist would support Ron Paul.


this shows that people are interested in the idea of small government and that's a step in the right direction.

That depends...

I know a few people who are libertarian-sympathetic (or Ron Paul supporting) that may be open to the ideas of anarchism and switch over.
But other libertarians just aren't at all in any stretch of the imagination.

[Trystan]

I would say anarchism. Because people are too mistrustful of Marxism nowadays.

[mykittyhasaboner]

*sigh*


The quintessential principle of anarchism is total rejection of the state and any institutions affiliated with the state. You say that Ron Paul had an anarchist following in reality they were just a bunch of libertarians (or something of the sort) because any real anarchist knows Ron Paul is a bourgeois politician. Advocating "small government" or whatever isn't in the right direction (especially if you call yourself an anarchist).

[Trystan]

A good number of libertarians and people fresh to politics got behind him and there was a pretty good anarchist backing for him too, this shows that people are interested in the idea of small government and that's a step in the right direction.

For Ron Paul and his hopelessly dullard supporters "small government" just means less regulation and interference/taxation on US citizens. The guy is anti-immigration. So presumably he wants to force 12 million people out of America. "Libertarian"? My arse. Anarchists support him? I lol'd, then I sighed . . .

[WorkersRepublic32]

Fascism

[Rosa Provokateur]

Then he's not an anarchist.
No consistent anarchist would support Ron Paul.



That depends...

I know a few people who are libertarian-sympathetic (or Ron Paul supporting) that may be open to the ideas of anarchism and switch over.
But other libertarians just aren't at all in any stretch of the imagination.

Hell, I did.

Guy supported leaving Iraq, tax-cuts, going back to the gold-standard, getting us off the Fed. I can support that. He's got a pretty clean track-record as far as how he votes and stuff so...

[Raúl Duke]

Hell, I did.

Guy supported leaving Iraq, tax-cuts, going back to the gold-standard, getting us off the Fed. I can support that. He's got a pretty clean track-record as far as how he votes and stuff so...

So?

Aren't you that christian anarchist dude? You are already inconsistent to begin with...

Plus this man is anti-immigrant (is it just me or are most american libertarians nativists too?); I just can't support someone who dislikes immigrants. Supposedly because of this he gain support from some reactionary "militiamen movement" people and even white nationalists I heard. Going back to the gold-standard is something that a real anarchist cares not about... (i.e. even in the versions of anarchism with some form of currency, they are usually based off labor {aka labor vouchers, etc} not gold, silver, or whatnot)

[Pogue]

The struggle will adopt modern forms. It develops naturally. Anarchism is best suited to this. But it depends on how you mean Marxism. Do you mean vanguardism, a state?

[Q]

This is such a useless poll.

[Idealism]

This is such a useless poll.

then why contribute?

[hugsandmarxism]

...the huge support Ron Paul received in '08 shows it.

I couldn't believe this when I read it. Ron Paul? Support for this capitalist pig means the growth of anarchism? Really?


A good number of libertarians and people fresh to politics got behind him and there was a pretty good anarchist backing for him too, this shows that people are interested in the idea of small government and that's a step in the right direction.

No, that's a step in the direction of hacked-up regulation, expanded corporate hegemony, and lower standards of living for workers. And is it all that surprising that the bourgeois sycophants of the libertarian movement and political neophytes within the US follow Paul?


Guy supported leaving Iraq, tax-cuts, going back to the gold-standard, getting us off the Fed. I can support that. He's got a pretty clean track-record as far as how he votes and stuff so...

...so because he dissented from a few of the more enthusiastic capitalists, this means he's symptomatic of an anarchist renaissance or something?

Am I missing something? :confused:

[Rosa Provokateur]

So?

Aren't you that christian anarchist dude? You are already inconsistent to begin with...

Plus this man is anti-immigrant (is it just me or are most american libertarians nativists too?); I just can't support someone who dislikes immigrants. Supposedly because of this he gain support from some reactionary "militiamen movement" people and even white nationalists I heard. Going back to the gold-standard is something that a real anarchist cares not about... (i.e. even in the versions of anarchism with some form of currency, they are usually based off labor {aka labor vouchers, etc} not gold, silver, or whatnot)

What's inconsistent about being a christian and an anarchist? Anarchy is about living based on your own free decisions right, well I decide to be christian.

I wasnt aware he was anti-immigrant. Say what you want about the gold-standard but if it gets us off the federal reserve, I support it.

The minimalization of the State is of utmost importance and if someone comes along who is proven willing to do it then I'll vote for him.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Am I missing something? :confused:

Not at all, it's this bizarre logic that the rolling back of the state (for minimally regulated capialism) is somehow a victory for anarchists bcause we oppose the state.

But minarchists, anarcho-capitalists, fee market libertarians or whatever they call themselves aren't our allies. Yes we oppose the state, but from a class basis, our class is intrigal to our opposition of the state. We view the state as a tool of the bourgoise, the destruction of the state is a necesssary part of the destruction of capital.

The state being 'rolled back'; allowing capitalism to exploit wokers easier does nothing for our class and i imagine Green Apostle's claim that anarchists voted for Ron Paul is groundless.

[Raúl Duke]

What's inconsistent about being a christian and an anarchist? Anarchy is about living based on your own free decisions right, well I decide to be christian.

I wasnt aware he was anti-immigrant. Say what you want about the gold-standard but if it gets us off the federal reserve, I support it.

The minimalization of the State is of utmost importance and if someone comes along who is proven willing to do it then I'll vote for him.

The minimalization of the state means nothing as long as capitalism is still around. Anarchism isn't just some simplistic "anti-state" ideology (although some would benefit from such a definition of anarchism, like "anarcho"-capitalists) but a ideology which one of it's main tenants is anti-hierarchy.

One can't denied the role the state has played in putting into action certain policies fought by the working class to address the excesses of capitalism. Minimizing the state while doing nothing about capitalism/as long as capitalism exist will not make anyone working person's life better, in fact it might make our living standards worst.

Anarchy is about equality and anti-hierarchy, not some abstract "live life based on your own decisions." Hell, if that was all that anarchism was about then it's allowed for one to "freely decide" to exploit people whether in de facto chattel slavery or wage slavery and we should do nothing about it (since these exploiters are "just living their life based on their own .decisions".)

What could be considered inconsistant about that is that you submit to a form of hierarchy, you submit yourself to the will/rules/etc of a unproven (likely non-existant) god. A consistant anarchist might as well follow Bakunin's line of thought:"if god really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him." Haven't you heard the old anarchist slogan: "No gods no masters"?


He who desires to worship god must harbor no childish illusions about the matter but bravely renounce his liberty and humanity.

[Jack]

Anarchy is about living based on your own free decisions .

That's Liberalism, Anarchism is not focused on bourgeois concepts of "freedom" or "individualism" but rather the emancipation of our class, which we beleive can only be done in a libertarian fashion, and by the people, not for the people.

Anyways onto the quote: I voted anarchism because, though Marxists are certainly better organized, there is alot of inaction on their part. With anarchists being at the forefront of many struggles such as the anti-globalization movement. Marxist's had their glory days between about 1920 to about 1980 (when numberous Marxist revolutions were happening, not just because of the USSR) while anarchists had our prime from around 1880-1920.

Now, though anarchism is constantly associated with youth and petite bourgeois (as someone stated earlier) and rediculous trends such as "post leftism" etc, the growth in youth interest will carry on as they get older, and will be a fundamental force in the workers movement.

As far as divisions in the anarchist movement that may hinder us: Mutualists are a theoretical fringe, "green" and primmies (whom I wouldn't consider anarchists) make up a small percentage, and are focused pretty much just in the US (Europeans seem to have noticed that you can't have Green without Red). Collectivists don't really exist outside Mexico, elsewhere they pretty much become part of Communist groups. In the Revolution, Communist Anarchism is the only form of anarchism that matters, others will be swept to the side.

[GracchusBabeuf]

I'm surprised that Ron Paul has been associated with anarchism. Ron Paul has more in common with white supremacists, neo-Nazis and conspiracy nuts than even with ordinary right-libertarians or Republicans. He is a far-right winger who'd cut off welfare to poor people while claiming "businesses" should be free to exploit workers as much as possible. He and his close advisors have a history of racism and homophobia. He is against imperialism abroad because he wants his country to shut itself off socially from the world while globalizing capitalism and exploitation.

Finally, anarchism cannot support any presidential candidate because bourgeois electoral politics is fundamentally against anarchism.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Hell, I did.

Guy supported leaving Iraq, tax-cuts, going back to the gold-standard, getting us off the Fed. I can support that. He's got a pretty clean track-record as far as how he votes and stuff so...

C'mon man, us Anarchists can't be supporting politicians, no matter who they are or claim to be.

[Idealism]

For all the people saying they supported ron paul as an anarchist, i hope not many, hes not. All he wants is to strengthen bourgeois's control of society by making their power unrestricted. That just replacing government with corporations.

[Hoxhaist]

Marxism always seems more likely when capitalism bares its true self. Marxism-Leninism will emerge in this century and complete its victory over capitalism and begnin the process of building socialim all over the world

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

Marxist theory, anarchist practice.

[Jack]

Marxism always seems more likely when capitalism bares its true self. Marxism-Leninism will emerge in this century and complete its victory over capitalism and begnin the process of building socialim all over the world

Because you did so well last time :laugh:

[Jack]

Since no one can really agree what anarchism really is, I'm inclined to go with Marxism.

Anarchists are pretty much divided between Communist, Collectivists, and Mutualists. As I discussed before, Communist Anarchism is the only relavent one.

With Marxists you have: Leninists, Maoists, Hoxhaists, Titoists, Luxembourgists, De Leonists, Council Communists, Trotskyists, Autonomists, and more.

[LeninBalls]

Sorry but, Maoism, Hoxhaism and Trots all fall under Leninism. "Luxembourgists" and "Council Communists" are the same thing.

What the fuck is a Titoist and an Autonomist anyways?

So now we have Leninism and Left Communism (Luxembourgism).

[Brother No. 1]

[Quote]What the fuck is a Titoist [Quote]

Titoist is someone who follows the ideal od Tito and his Revisonism in the Socialist federative Republic of Yugoslavia.

[Jack]

Sorry but, Maoism, Hoxhaism and Trots all fall under Leninism. "Luxembourgists" and "Council Communists" are the same thing.

What the fuck is a Titoist and an Autonomist anyways?

So now we have Leninism and Left Communism (Luxembourgism).

No:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourgism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism


De Leonists aren't ultra left, they aren't Leninist or Left Communist.

Still, Hoxhaist/"anti revisionists"), Trots, and Maoists can't agree on what Socialism is, which is why I mentioned them.

Basically the only relavent anarchists are Communist, all others are only theories, not movements.

[LeninBalls]

Did you even read the articles? Both agree on no vanguard, are anti-Lenin and believe worker councils should run the show.

And about the several Leninist schools, how don't we agree? We all agree and know what socialism is, we just idolize different revolutionnaires.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

And about the several Leninist schools, how don't we agree? We all agree and know what socialism is, we just idolize different revolutionnaires.

I think you'll find when examining the varying Leninist groups that that probably isn't the case

[LeninBalls]

Not in my experience.

[Mälli]

Id say anarchism. Marxism is so often misunderstood that its reputation is more bad than anarchism.

[Pogue]

Marxism always seems more likely when capitalism bares its true self. Marxism-Leninism will emerge in this century and complete its victory over capitalism and begnin the process of building socialim all over the world

Thats where you fail. 'Marxism-Leninism' will complete its victory over the working class? You guys fetishise your ideology as a movement in and of itself. The working class will complete its victory and build socialism, not an ideology.

[Hoxhaist]

What the fuck is a Titoist?

A Titoist is a revisionist who goes so far away from Marxism-Leninism that they become basically a Council Communist

[Hoxhaist]

We all agree and know what socialism is, we just idolize different revolutionnaires.

Yeah its like having different favorite players on the same team; we are all Marxist-Leninists just with different favorite vanguards in different revolutions

[Post-Something]

In all honestly, I think most of the big Marxist schools of thought will fade away. It's most likely that alternative ideas that merge Anarchist and Marxist ideals will be more at the forefront because they offer a more applicable strategy to this day in age. For example, technocracy, parecon, identity politics and radical democracy. I also think a lot of traditional Marxist ideas have been pretty much cast away in the academic field, so we'll take a much less dogmatic "post-marxist" approach and analysis.

Having said that, Anarchists will always be around. I just don't see them having a larger effect than they do today.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Not at all, it's this bizarre logic that the rolling back of the state (for minimally regulated capialism) is somehow a victory for anarchists bcause we oppose the state.

But minarchists, anarcho-capitalists, fee market libertarians or whatever they call themselves aren't our allies. Yes we oppose the state, but from a class basis, our class is intrigal to our opposition of the state. We view the state as a tool of the bourgoise, the destruction of the state is a necesssary part of the destruction of capital.

The state being 'rolled back'; allowing capitalism to exploit wokers easier does nothing for our class and i imagine Green Apostle's claim that anarchists voted for Ron Paul is groundless.

It is a victory; the more we roll it back, the easier we can get rid of it.

They're your enemies notmine. I see the elimination of the State as paramount regardless of economics or class and if free-market ideas can mobilize other people to get on board with this attitude then I say use it.

Exploitation would be harder without the State there to nanny the economy, owners would be forced to manage more honestly since there'd be no one around to bail them out.

[Rosa Provokateur]

The minimalization of the state means nothing as long as capitalism is still around. Anarchism isn't just some simplistic "anti-state" ideology (although some would benefit from such a definition of anarchism, like "anarcho"-capitalists) but a ideology which one of it's main tenants is anti-hierarchy.

One can't denied the role the state has played in putting into action certain policies fought by the working class to address the excesses of capitalism. Minimizing the state while doing nothing about capitalism/as long as capitalism exist will not make anyone working person's life better, in fact it might make our living standards worst.

Anarchy is about equality and anti-hierarchy, not some abstract "live life based on your own decisions." Hell, if that was all that anarchism was about then it's allowed for one to "freely decide" to exploit people whether in de facto chattel slavery or wage slavery and we should do nothing about it (since these exploiters are "just living their life based on their own .decisions".)

What could be considered inconsistant about that is that you submit to a form of hierarchy, you submit yourself to the will/rules/etc of a unproven (likely non-existant) god. A consistant anarchist might as well follow Bakunin's line of thought:"if god really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him." Haven't you heard the old anarchist slogan: "No gods no masters"?

Agreed.

Without a government you have no economy: no economy, no capitalism.

I agree; however your example is un-sound. I'm talking about people living their lives based on their own decisions, their lives and no one elses.

If Christians are to engage with the world, the best available option is anarchism because it opens up space for Christians to engage without selling out their primary allegiances and core commitments, especially to peacemaking and nonviolence. I dont see any of the teachings that Jesus gave as being oppressive or harmful and, in a way, everyone submits themselves to something. We all have our own codes of conduct and I choose Jesus' as mine.

[cb9's_unity]

The only way either is going to work is if we work together. From there it is what the proletariat decides to do. I personally hope they choose a highly democratic transitional workers state.

[Vincent P.]

Anarchism can be put into practice tomorow morning, there is no risk of counter-revolution and since it's made on a volountary basis it may be more effective. I think that with proper "propaganda", anarcho-communist communes would be most efficient and sure way to undermine capitalism.

[Rosa Provokateur]

That's Liberalism, Anarchism is not focused on bourgeois concepts of "freedom" or "individualism" but rather the emancipation of our class, which we beleive can only be done in a libertarian fashion, and by the people, not for the people.



"Anarchism's outward form is a free, non-governed society, which offers freedom, equality and solidarity for its members. Its foundations are to be found in man's sense of mutual responsibility, which has remained unchanged in all places and times. This sense of responsibility is capable of securing freedom and social justice for all men by its own unaided efforts." --Nestor Makhno

[Cumannach]

Do you anarchists have any idea how stupid you sound?

Anarchism will be as irrelevant in the 21st as it was in the 20th century.

[Vincent P.]

Do you anarchists have any idea how stupid you sound?

Anarchism will be as irrelevant in the 21st as it was in the 20th century.
Anarchism will get bigger with the growing will of the people to have a concrete, direct emancipation from capitalism which has been inexistant for most of the 20th century. I don't see a global anarchism anytime soon, but it's easy to have some "official" states so undermined with socialism it will be considered illegetimate by most people.

[Idealism]

Do you anarchists have any idea how stupid you sound?

Anarchism will be as irrelevant in the 21st as it was in the 20th century.

at least anarchism was able to establish "communism" for a small time, which even the "communist" countries did not claim to have achieved in the 20th century.

[StalinFanboy]

It is a victory; the more we roll it back, the easier we can get rid of it.

They're your enemies notmine. I see the elimination of the State as paramount regardless of economics or class and if free-market ideas can mobilize other people to get on board with this attitude then I say use it.

Exploitation would be harder without the State there to nanny the economy, owners would be forced to manage more honestly since there'd be no one around to bail them out.
Please gtfo of anarchism with your reformist nonsense.

[cb9's_unity]

Do you anarchists have any idea how stupid you sound?

Anarchism will be as irrelevant in the 21st as it was in the 20th century.

Do you have a clue how stupid you sound? I'm not an anarchist but it's arrogant assholes like you who are actively making sure leftism won't be relevant in the 21'st century. If you want to attack anarchism actually do it in a way that has some substance in it. All your doing now is driving a wedge between people who should be working together for proletarian revolution.

People like you are effectively counter-revolutionaries that the capitalists have been depending on for the past century.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Please gtfo of anarchism with your reformist nonsense.

Reform is the cousin of revolution.

[Jack]

Reform is the cousin of revolution.

Maybe in Alabama, reform fucks over revolution.

[Brother No. 1]

Reform is the cousin of revolution.

Sure...and Reform sure help China in the 1970s.:rolleyes:

[Raúl Duke]

Agreed.

Without a government you have no economy: no economy, no capitalism.

I agree; however your example is un-sound. I'm talking about people living their lives based on their own decisions, their lives and no one elses.

If Christians are to engage with the world, the best available option is anarchism because it opens up space for Christians to engage without selling out their primary allegiances and core commitments, especially to peacemaking and nonviolence. I dont see any of the teachings that Jesus gave as being oppressive or harmful and, in a way, everyone submits themselves to something. We all have our own codes of conduct and I choose Jesus' as mine.

What are you on?

"Without a government you have no economy"
That's a baseless argument, prove it. I'm extremely skeptical.
Many leftists have already thought of (although usually we think of the worst-case scenario) how a capitalism without a state would function: They will rapidly form structures that are similar to certain structures in a state such as a private police/security forces and even private armies. Actually, even today such stuff exist.


Reform is the cousin of revolution. The age of reform, at least in the west for sure, has been over since the end of the 30s-sometime in the 60s/early 70s.


Anarchism will be as irrelevant in the 21st as it was in the 20th century. :lol::rolleyes::lol:

I don't know but I find this a bit funny coming from people of a political tendency that was once extremely relevant but now is becoming increasingly irrelevant themselves; perhaps due to all the fuck-ups that was the USSR/Warsaw Pacts that never got to Communism and instead degenerated from within. Especially irrelevant are all those "Communist" Parties" that are now just a bunch of reformists. Meanwhile, the anarchists seem to be becoming more relevant (at least in parts of Europe).

[hugsandmarxism]

Do you anarchists have any idea how stupid you sound?

Anarchism will be as irrelevant in the 21st as it was in the 20th century.

This isn't constructive.

Anyhow, I think all leftist tendencies will play some role in the 21st century, and that it really will be a geographic distinction rather than one of theory. Anarchism will be more likely to prevail in the US, for instance, than it will in other places. My opinion is that marxism will play a bigger role over all because south east asia (a major population center), as well as the former soviet republics, will remember socialism (as flawed as it may have been) and come to the conclusion that it was better that capitalism. But at the end of the day, we're all in this together. It will take anarchists and communists of all tendencies working together to make any progress.

Love thy comrade, people. ;)

[F9]

Just keep it civil, and return on topic, last warning!


Anarchism can be put into practice tomorow morning, there is no risk of counter-revolution and since it's made on a volountary basis it may be more effective. I think that with proper "propaganda", anarcho-communist communes would be most efficient and sure way to undermine capitalism.No risk of counter-revolution tomorrow morning if Anarchism applies?:w00t::w00t:Why?This isnt possible...None capitalist gonna surrend everything s/he got's!


Do you anarchists have any idea how stupid you sound?

Anarchism will be as irrelevant in the 21st as it was in the 20th century. Quit that attitude, and all those crap, at least talk when you really have something to say!

Fuserg9:star:

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Reform is the cousin of revolution.

Yeah the embarrassing one that wonders over to discuss his ballbag piercing when your trying to chat up a girl.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

"Anarchism's outward form is a free, non-governed society, which offers freedom, equality and solidarity for its members. Its foundations are to be found in man's sense of mutual responsibility, which has remained unchanged in all places and times. This sense of responsibility is capable of securing freedom and social justice for all men by its own unaided efforts." --Nestor Makhno

Makhno was unlike you in the respects he did not put up with shit. When the white army came to offer an alliance he had the bastards shot!

[Jack]

"Anarchism's outward form is a free, non-governed society, which offers freedom, equality and solidarity for its members. Its foundations are to be found in man's sense of mutual responsibility, which has remained unchanged in all places and times. This sense of responsibility is capable of securing freedom and social justice for all men by its own unaided efforts." --Nestor Makhno

But not a bourgeois concept of "freedom". Freedom for our class, not freedom to, I don't know, have sex with animals.

[StalinFanboy]

"Anarchism's outward form is a free, non-governed society, which offers freedom, equality and solidarity for its members. Its foundations are to be found in man's sense of mutual responsibility, which has remained unchanged in all places and times. This sense of responsibility is capable of securing freedom and social justice for all men by its own unaided efforts." --Nestor Makhno
Do you know how Makhno dealt with counter revolutionaries and deserters? This is a direct quote "secretly and without mercy."

[F9]

This got offtopic(sadly), im closing it but if someone feels that there is conversation ontopic that wants to be discussed or post something "good" please leave me a message, visitor or pm to reopen it.
Closed