Grievances between Anarchists and Communists

[Oktyabr]

I have never understood this. In a number of revolutions and conflicts, Anarchists and Communists have clashed violently with each other. It happened in the Ukraine during the Russian revolution, and again in Spain, during the Civil War and Revolution.

The reason I ask is because I spend my spare time weighing the advanteges and disadvanteges of each, and since I can never come to a conclusion, I want to understand the primary differences (and thus conflict) between each.

[Black Dagger]

What is the question you want answered here?

'What are the grievances between anarchists and marxists?'

[Invincible Summer]

I'm pretty sure you mean Anarchists and Marxists.

The best way to "balance" your opinion is to not worry too much about who is/was better and focus on what we can do now for the future

[ZeroNowhere]

There's no essential difference between anarchism and Marxism. In the Spanish Civil War, the difference was that the anarchists were communist.

[StrictlyRuddie]

The common answer to this question is usually that they both share the same goal but differ how to get there, Marxists want to utilize the state to and anarchists don't etc..

But in reality, if you really examine the 2 tendencies you'll notice very little differences and plenty of breeding ground for synthesis. Non leninist Marxism and schools of marxism that negate the need for "A group of professional revolutionaries" or "A bureaucracy over the proles" during and after the revolution can be unified I believe if both sides drop the inconsistent definitions of the state. There is NO difference between a "Marxist workers state built from the bottom up, with its worst sides lopped off(acountable police, arming of the people etc)" and a "Confederation of Communes built from the bottom up" but again, the definition of the state is different for both groups so it is kind of hard t acutely see it, what the anarchists call a state is not what marxists call the state. And remember that many anarchists were happy to hear and read Lenin's "State and revolution" and many actually joined the Bolsheviks because of it. Besides the vanguard idea, anarchists and Leninists are also overlapping tendencies. Now if Lenin actually acted on what he wrote in "State and Revolution" is debatable..


Here is a qoute from the book
Wobblies and Zapatistas: Conversations on Anarchism, Marxism and Radical History
"I am a person who believes that Marxism and anarchism each has
indispensable strengths and dramatic weaknesses. I think the
future of the Left literally depends on synthesizing these two
traditions. I do not believe one should be privileged over
the other. Nor do I consider it helpful to contrive terms
such as “Anarcho-Marxist.” It is much simpler than that. A
century and a half ago, for reasons that have more to do with
personalities than anything else, these two viewpoints were
made to seem mutually exclusive alternatives. They are not.
They are Hegelian moments that need to be synthesized."

Remember that when the Paris commune was established both Anarchists AND Marxists claimed that the commune "Was the blueprint of the communist goal" and celebrated it until its defeat.

I probably didn't do to good of an answer but behind the inconsistent definitions, terms, and dogmatism of both sides we see that they are both one in the same.

[MilitantAnarchist]

There's no essential difference between anarchism and Marxism. In the Spanish Civil War, the difference was that the anarchists were communist.

How can there be no essential difference between anarchism and marxism?

[ckaihatsu]

political spectrum, from a Marxist


I recently did up a diagram that lays out various major political orientations on a schematic spectrum. Feel free to take a look and comment....


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://tinyurl.com/d2564h


Chris







--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[Raúl Duke]

Spain, during the Civil War and Revolution.

The "grievances" in that conflict was not a uniform "anarchist vs marxists" thing.
The POUM was supportive of the CNT/FAI and as far as I know never tried to crush them as the more USSR-influenced (and thus Stalinist considering the times) communist factions did.

Whats interesting to noticed is that in the 3 examples you outline the anarchists were eager, to a degree, to work with the Leninists/Marxists. The question becomes/should be, which side started the hostilities and why?

I also think that many anarchists, due to the history of these 3 revolutions/etc, are now more suspicious and cautious of the idea of working with Leninists.

[autotrophic]

How can there be no essential difference between anarchism and marxism?

You can be an Anarchist and still believe most (if not all) of Marx's main ideas. The main thing that Anarchists oppose is Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, etc. Most of Marx's ideas on class struggle, property, historical materialism, revolution, economics are very easily combined with anarchism.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Anarchists don't necessarily have a grievance with Marx. It is more to do with Leninism and the idea of a vanguard party.

[Agrippa]

Many anarchists do however criticize some aspects of Marx's theories.

Namely how he (especially earlier in his career) insisted that the centralized, industrialized proletariat in the most materially developed regions of the capitalist world would have the most revolutionary potential - going so far as to accuse certain segments of the proletariat (prostitutes, panhandlers, mutinying soldiers, petty thieves) of being "lumpen" and thus disloyal to the proletariat, and, along with Engels, justify not only the U.S. invasion of Mexico, the French occupation of Algeria, and the British colonization of India, but a hypothetical German conquest of East Europe, as politically progressive in the sense of developing capitalist society the point necessary to create the conditions of communism.

Similarly, as Italian Marxist intellectual Silvia Federici pointed out, Marx's assumption that the primitive accumulation of capitalism was progressive and improved the material existence of the human race, that fuedalism needs to develop into capitalism and should be celebrated when it does, etc. fundamentally ignores the experiences of women in drawing that conclusion.

These are ideological problems Marx began to correct later in life. Marx was truly an anarchist by the time of his death

[The Feral Underclass]

Anarchists don't necessarily have a grievance with Marx. It is more to do with Leninism and the idea of a vanguard party.

Anarchists object to centralised political authority as being antithetical to the creation of a free workers movement and society, rejecting hierarchy on that basis.

Our objection with Leninism is not just the "idea" of a vanguard party, but its actual existence and its centralisation of political authority into a state.

[Black Sheep]

Why did Oktyabr get restricted?

Why is this Q posted here,ffs?

The enraging thing is when you hear anarchists/marxist calling the other tendency as 'reactionary','traitors' etc, when eventually they both cling to a perspective of the best way to a communist society.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Why is this Q posted here,ffs?

The enraging thing is when you hear anarchists/marxist calling the other tendency as 'reactionary','traitors' etc, when eventually they both cling to a perspective of the best way to a communist society.

I don't quite understand what you mean? I agree on the pointless sectarian arguments though.

[F9]

Moved & cleaned it from the diversions.

[RGacky3]

Marxism is more like a tool to analysie things and a specific theory by a specific person "Karl Marx". Anarchism is a broad set of principles, based on simple concepts.

Its like asking whats the difference between "good sportsmanship" and the official NFL rules (not a very good illustratio but you get the point).

Now in practice:
Many who call themselves marxists model themselves after the bolsheviks. The bolsheviks and the people that model themselves after them tend to think that they must Take State Power, in other words thats their goal, which clearly puts them at odds with Anarchists. They also consider themselves to be the leaders of the revolution, which means tha revolutionaries, should follow a "united action" (which means listen to the bolshevik types).

Its not just a matter of 2 roads to the same place, it has to do with one trying to eliminate power, the other trying to take power in order to eventually eliminate it. But to the one trying to take power, the one trying to eliminate it is in the way of their goals. So, the clash.

[trivas7]

You can be an Anarchist and still believe most (if not all) of Marx's main ideas.
This is nonsense. Marxists believe that all class struggle is ultimately political struggle. This anarchists deny.

B/c anarchism isn't ground in a scientific worldview it is incompatible w/ the goal of communism. Anarchism is not so much a political philosophy as a peculiar accomodation to bourgeois society.

[RGacky3]

Marxists believe that all class struggle is ultimately political struggle. This anarchists deny.

Says who?


B/c anarchism isn't ground in a scientific worldview it is incompatible w/ the goal of communism. Anarchism is not so much a political philosophy as a peculiar accomodation to bourgeois society.

Like I said before, Anarchism and marxism are 2 different types of things


Marxism is more like a tool to analysie things and a specific theory by a specific person "Karl Marx". Anarchism is a broad set of principles, based on simple concepts.

Its like asking whats the difference between "good sportsmanship" and the official NFL rules (not a very good illustratio but you get the point).

As for your second point all I have to say is you have not the slightest idea what your talking about. You seam like someone who reads sentances but does'nt understand the paragraph. Your what I would call a "philisophically inclined dumbass".

[Kronos]

I've always loved this aphorism, taken from Twilight of the Idols.


Christian and anarchist.— When the anarchist, as the mouthpiece of the declining strata of society, demands with a fine indignation what is "right," "justice," and "equal rights," he is merely under the pressure of his own uncultured state, which cannot comprehend why he actually suffers—what it is that he is poor in: life ... A causal instinct asserts itself in him: it must be somebody's fault that he is in a bad way ... Also, the "fine indignation" itself soothes him; it is a pleasure for all wretched devils to scold: it gives a slight intoxication of power. Even plaintiveness and complaining can give life a charm for the sake of which one endures it: there is a fine dose of revenge in every complaint; one charges one's own bad situation, and under certain circumstances even one's own badness, to those who are different, as if that were an injustice, a forbidden privilege. "If I am canaille, you ought to be too": on such logic are revolutions made.— Complaining is never any good: it stems from weakness. Whether one charges one's misfortune to others or to oneself—the socialist does the former; the Christian, for example, the latter—really makes no difference. The common and, let us add, the unworthy thing is that it is supposed to be somebody's fault that one is suffering—in short, that the sufferer prescribes the honey of revenge for himself against his suffering. The objects of this need for revenge, as a need for pleasure, are mere occasions: everywhere the sufferer finds occasions for satisfying his little revenge. If he is a Christian—to repeat it once more—he finds them in himself ... The Christian and the anarchist are both décadents.— But when the Christian condemns, slanders, and besmirches the "world," his instinct is the same as that which prompts the socialist worker to condemn, slander, and besmirch society. The "last judgment" is the sweet comfort of revenge—the revolution, which the socialist worker also awaits, but conceived as a little farther off ... The "beyond"—why a beyond, if not as a means for besmirching this world? ...
For Nietzsche the symptom of weakness and decadence is the revolutionary spirit because it initial stimulus is that of being reactionary- it says "no" to what is outside itself, what threatens itself, while the strong "affirming" spirit, as Nietzsche calls it, does not resent but invites, challenges, wants to overthrown out of an instinct to dominate rather than to be compensated for one's own failure.

Now it is no argument that capitalism is an expression of cultural decadence as well, of squandering and excess to the point of gluttony. That much is certain. But this does not justify the origins of the revolutionary spirit- the revolutionary does not first conceive of the need to abolish capitalism for such reasons. He does so because he feels cheated. And why does he feel cheated? Because he is powerless and poor, not because capitalism should not be. Honestly, ask yourself "what should be"? Nothing "should" be, and if one conceives of what he thinks "should" be, if he is a revolutionary, his stimulus is reactionary rather than affirmative.

Politics will always only be the expression of strong wills conspiring together for power. They are never justified on moral grounds, on teleological grounds, or epistemological grounds. One must realize that politics do not become because they are "rational".

What does "rational" mean? What is "the truth" about anything. Is such a thing possible? Certainly not. There is only perspective, no "facts".

Against positivism, that last epistemological stage where the intellect is exhausted- "there is nothing but change", "where is pure reason", "the world is only an appearance", ad nauseam.

Then one reasons "the senses lie.....let's trust science." But then isn't science only the testimony of the senses? A scientific truth is true only in so far as the senses interpret the world. Now we accept what is "convenient", not what might be "true".

And we talk about "truth" and use our signs and symbols to represent it in language and mathematics....but again we have only posited a "subject" as a real, enduring representative of reality. We are psychologistic- the degree to which we call something "true" is the degree to which our sense have the capacity to be in error. Man is only the sum of his errors. There is no "subject". We have invented this concept, a necessary illusory thing, so that we can make the world calculable. Without this will to control and dominate the world...there would be no need need for such convenient lies.


Today we possess science precisely to the extent to which we have decided to accept the testimony of the senses—to the extent to which we sharpen them further, arm them, and have learned to think them through. The rest is miscarriage and not-yet-science: in other words, metaphysics, theology, psychology, epistemology. Or formal science, a doctrine of signs: such as logic and that applied logic which is called mathematics. In them reality is not encountered at all, not even as a problem; no more than the question of the value of such a sign-convention as logic.- NietzscheWhere now does the revolutionary stand? Do you not realize that there are no moral or rational grounds on which politics are founded?

I don't want to stop a revolution....I only want the revolutionaries conscience to bite him once and for all. Nobody and nothing owes you anything.

Why are you a revolutionary? Do you have the courage to look behind yourself to answer this question?

[RGacky3]

We are a revolutionary because its better to be free and equal then ruled over and poor ... We don't need Nitche to tell us why. No one owes us anything your right. Capitalism, keeps one class wealthy and in control, and us, out of control and poor ... soooo, we get rid of it.

[Kronos]

Good, good. Let's work with that.

Would you agree that your objection here can be translated into different terms if I could reasonably convince you? I think I can.

Ultimately your objection, stripped down to its bare essentials, is that there is a person/class that is profiting from your labor....a profit that you do not get yourself. We can bypass the concept of "money" completely here and equate "profit" with "commodity consumption", since a capitalist's money inevitably becomes a consumable commodity in that he too buys things with that money. Now your argument becomes: I do not want to support the consumption habits of another person with my labor. The basis of your argument is that a capitalist does not labor himself....but has the opportunity to use commodities through the medium of money...which he makes from exploiting workers.

So far so good. Your argument is stripped down to its main point of objection.

Now I ask you: what is the fundamental difference between being exploited by a capitalist class and equalized to others in a working class that might not produce as much as yourself?

Here the same objection should occur, because still you are creating the privilege for others who are not laboring as much as yourself to consume as much as yourself or more, without having provided the same amount of labor.

If you work X amount of hours and produce Y amount of commodities, while another person works X amount of hours and produces Z amount of commodities, and the maximum allowance of commodity possession for a worker allowed by the state is W, then the worker who produces Z amount of commodities is equal to the worker who produces Y amount of commodities, and both get Z amount of commodities to consume despite the amount of labor they invest in production.

What is the difference between working for a capitalist who consumes as much or more than yourself by using the money he makes from your labor to buy commodities, and working with and beside another worker who consumes as much or more than yourself while working less?

The "other worker" is synonymous to the "capitalist" here.

The only difference between these two conditions is that in the former...you have the opportunity to make a higher wage, and therefore consume more, while in the latter you do not have the opportunity to make a higher wage or consume more without the permission of the state.

Suddenly, the capitalist system becomes the superior system for the proletariat who is better skilled than another proletariat.

If you look closely at what I have just shown you, you will see that your objection is not resolved by communism but instead is worsened.

Dare I say that the real solution to this problem is to both preserve the integrity of the better skilled worker and his right to be rewarded according to his own personal effort....and eliminate the possibility of a single person profiting from the labor of another person while not laboring himself?

Perhaps this can be done by state controlled corporations, which retain the right to subordinate a corporation at any time to be used for the advantage of the entire society? Intervals of redistribution of the wealth of corporations, and/or increased taxing for corporations while decreased taxing for the working classes? Free education and medical care for everyone. Free mandatory housing. All of this funded by the taxes paid by corporations.

Is it all coming together for you now? Do you see it and say "aha!"?

The incentive remains for everyone- working classes are enthusiastic about their work because they know they can progress, and corporations are put in "check" by the state so they do not mutate into supercapitalist structures.

In a communist system everyone is leveled, equalized, turned into a drone. In a capitalist system the majority gets fucked. In this system......well, what would we call such a system?

[ crosses fingers ]

[Jack]

I have never understood this. In a number of revolutions and conflicts, Anarchists and Communists have clashed violently with each other. It happened in the Ukraine during the Russian revolution, and again in Spain, during the Civil War and Revolution.

The reason I ask is because I spend my spare time weighing the advanteges and disadvanteges of each, and since I can never come to a conclusion, I want to understand the primary differences (and thus conflict) between each.

They backstabbed us in Spain.

They backstabbed us in Ukraine.

They will work with us until they find a way to undermine us, which is why proud sectarians like me don't work with them.

[PCommie]

My issue with anarchism is just this: You "Smash the State." Okay, if there is no centralization of anything, you're going to have a big fucking war. If there's no centralization of power to command the military for defense, to make decisions, or at least carry them out, and things like that... Dear God, comrade! How can we just be thrust from a stated society into "just getting along?" The worker's state is necessary. It has formed into dictatorships in the past, but it's a "necessary evil."

H&S forever,
-PC

[Agrippa]

I've always loved this aphorism, taken from Twilight of the Idols.

For Nietzsche the symptom of weakness and decadence is the revolutionary spirit because it initial stimulus is that of being reactionary- it says "no" to what is outside itself, what threatens itself, while the strong "affirming" spirit, as Nietzsche calls it, does not resent but invites, challenges, wants to overthrown out of an instinct to dominate rather than to be compensated for one's own failure.

Now it is no argument that capitalism is an expression of cultural decadence as well, of squandering and excess to the point of gluttony. That much is certain. But this does not justify the origins of the revolutionary spirit- the revolutionary does not first conceive of the need to abolish capitalism for such reasons. He does so because he feels cheated. And why does he feel cheated? Because he is powerless and poor, not because capitalism should not be. Honestly, ask yourself "what should be"? Nothing "should" be, and if one conceives of what he thinks "should" be, if he is a revolutionary, his stimulus is reactionary rather than affirmative.

Politics will always only be the expression of strong wills conspiring together for power. They are never justified on moral grounds, on teleological grounds, or epistemological grounds. One must realize that politics do not become because they are "rational".

What does "rational" mean? What is "the truth" about anything. Is such a thing possible? Certainly not. There is only perspective, no "facts".

Against positivism, that last epistemological stage where the intellect is exhausted- "there is nothing but change", "where is pure reason", "the world is only an appearance", ad nauseam.

Then one reasons "the senses lie.....let's trust science." But then isn't science only the testimony of the senses? A scientific truth is true only in so far as the senses interpret the world. Now we accept what is "convenient", not what might be "true".

And we talk about "truth" and use our signs and symbols to represent it in language and mathematics....but again we have only posited a "subject" as a real, enduring representative of reality. We are psychologistic- the degree to which we call something "true" is the degree to which our sense have the capacity to be in error. Man is only the sum of his errors. There is no "subject". We have invented this concept, a necessary illusory thing, so that we can make the world calculable. Without this will to control and dominate the world...there would be no need need for such convenient lies.

Where now does the revolutionary stand? Do you not realize that there are no moral or rational grounds on which politics are founded?

I don't want to stop a revolution....I only want the revolutionaries conscience to bite him once and for all. Nobody and nothing owes you anything.

Why are you a revolutionary? Do you have the courage to look behind yourself to answer this question?

You're going to get the shit flamed out of you for this, y'nkow?

[Jack]

My issue with anarchism is just this: You "Smash the State." Okay, if there is no centralization of anything, you're going to have a big fucking war. If there's no centralization of power to command the military for defense, to make decisions, or at least carry them out, and things like that... Dear God, comrade! How can we just be thrust from a stated society into "just getting along?" The worker's state is necessary. It has formed into dictatorships in the past, but it's a "necessary evil."

H&S forever,
-PC

We don't just plan to get rid of the state and leave everything be. Read this before you make assumptions about anarchism: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html

What makes a workers state any different than a bourgeois state? Why must I submit to the authority of another that I do not fully consent to? What is to stop our oh so wonderful rulers from abandoning socialism and going the path of China, or even Cambodia?

If you base your economy on centralization, how is it supposed to function in Communism (that is, if a state could ever bring us there), where there will have to be decentralization?

[ZeroNowhere]

What makes a workers state any different than a bourgeois state? Why must I submit to the authority of another that I do not fully consent to? What is to stop our oh so wonderful rulers from abandoning socialism and going the path of China, or even Cambodia?Because expropriation of the expropriators requires the subjugation of the interests of one class to another. Which, presumably, would mean the capitalist class 'submitting to the authority of another that one does not fully consent to'. I would presume that you do not see a revolution any differently. As for what makes the class rule of the proletariat any different from that of the bourgeoisie, I would expect that to be fairly self-evident.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You're going to get the shit flamed out of you for this, y'nkow?

Really? My reaction was TL;DR.

[Kronos]

You're going to get the shit flamed out of you for this, y'nkow?

Nah. The commies don't want none.

[ draws a line in the sand ]

[Jack]

Because expropriation of the expropriators requires the subjugation of the interests of one class to another. Which, presumably, would mean the capitalist class 'submitting to the authority of another that one does not fully consent to'. I would presume that you do not see a revolution any differently. As for what makes the class rule of the proletariat any different from that of the bourgeoisie, I would expect that to be fairly self-evident.

It is not repression of the (former) bourgeoisie any more than a national liberation struggle is repression of the colonizing nation. It is rather liberation, the bourgeoisie will be ousted from their positions, and will be repressed only if they attempt resistance.

[nightazday]

I have never understood this. In a number of revolutions and conflicts, Anarchists and Communists have clashed violently with each other. It happened in the Ukraine during the Russian revolution, and again in Spain, during the Civil War and Revolution.

The reason I ask is because I spend my spare time weighing the advanteges and disadvanteges of each, and since I can never come to a conclusion, I want to understand the primary differences (and thus conflict) between each.

they are very different people anarchist don't like ANY type of government a communist style government sounds good at first but like a democratic one it can be easily corrupted, anarchist are scared that said communist government can turn totalitarianistic because simply they never promise they are not going to. it doesn't help that the government structure reserves the right to take resources from the people to suit their needs (war, giving luxuries to officials, or just common theft)

the fact that the first critic of the USSR was an anarchist (Emma Goldman)

[mikelepore]

Someone may find this useful -- marxists.org : index of documents related to the conflict between Marx and Bakunin ... http://marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/bakunin-conflict.htm

But (I think) that index omits an important one, Marx's "Conspectus of Bakunin's' State and Anarchy'" - http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm

[ZeroNowhere]

It is not repression of the (former) bourgeoisie any more than a national liberation struggle is repression of the colonizing nation. It is rather liberation, the bourgeoisie will be ousted from their positions, and will be repressed only if they attempt resistance.
It is subjugation of the interests of the existing bourgeoisie to dispossess them. Of course we don't repress the 'former bourgeoisie', that's not a class.


the fact that the first critic of the USSR was an anarchist (Emma Goldman)
I'm fairly sure that the SPGB also got around pretty early, though they're also anarchist. I'd also give the Mensheviks credit here.


they are very different people anarchist don't like ANY type of government a communist style government sounds good at first but like a democratic one it can be easily corrupted,
Last I recall, anarchists don't really mind self-government. Anyways, the USSR was not communist, it was capitalist, a 'communist state' is an oxymoron, etc.


But (I think) that index omits an important one, Marx's "Conspectus of Bakunin's' State and Anarchy'"
Libcom has the full thing, while the MIA only has an extract, but that's really the most important part of it, since the rest is mainly just copying down Bakunin (to learn Russian or something, if I recall correctly. Writing down how much you apparently suck is apparently a great way to learn a language).

[JohnnyC]

I'm fairly sure that the SPGB also got around pretty early, though they're also anarchist.

Aren't they Marxists?I may be wrong, but last time I checked their site, I think I saw somewhere that they consider themselves as true Marxists (unlike Leninists) and that they promote Historical Materialism.Their principles may be considered anarchistic, but I think that's only because they have correct approach to Marxism, not because they are actually anarcists.Also they call their organization party and participate in elections, wouldn't they, if they were anarchist, rather call it federation(or something similar) and abstain?

[ZeroNowhere]

Aren't they Marxists?
Yes.


Their principles may be considered anarchistic, but I think that's only because they have correct approach to Marxism, not because they are actually anarcists.Also they call their organization party and participate in elections, wouldn't they, if they were anarchist, rather call it federation(or something similar) and abstain?
I generally don't see the use of the ballot as being incompatible with anarchism, at least if used as a destructive force (which most of them would support, I believe). On the other hand, they're not Leninists, Blanquists, Bordigists, and the like, they're certainly against the Church, they're against the schooling system, judging from articles in the Socialist Standard, and, of course, are against capital and the state. They're closer to Kropotkin than Marx on post-revolutionary society.

[JohnnyC]

They're closer to Kropotkin than Marx on post-revolutionary society.
You are right.But I think that's only because of their stance against labour vouchers, everything else they advocate goes quite well with Marxism.Personally, I don't agree with them, but that's only because I don't consider this the right moment to make such decision.When(If) socialism is established society will best decide whether some sort of rationing is needed or not, right now I think it's too early to tell.Although, with the way technology advances all the time, I can see why they have such attitude.

[ZeroNowhere]

You are right.But I think that's only because of their stance against labour vouchers, everything else they advocate goes quite well with Marxism.Personally, I don't agree with them, but that's only because I don't consider this the right moment to make such decision.When(If) socialism is established society will best decide whether some sort of rationing is needed or not, right now I think it's too early to tell.Although, with the way technology advances all the time, I can see why they have such attitude.
Sure, I don't agree with them on that either. Still, I don't really see Marxism and anarchism as having any necessary distinction.

[PCommie]

We don't just plan to get rid of the state and leave everything be. Read this before you make assumptions about anarchism: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist...quest/toc.html

I thank you, comrade, for the link, but I'm not reading 10+ chapters of book just to find out how anarchists model their government when you could simply explain it in a sentence or two. No offense, I guess I'm just lazy. ;)


Really? My reaction was TL;DR.

What's TL;DR mean?

USSR wasn't socialist after Lenin. Stal was totalitarian, and then the reformists fucked everything all the way back to capitalism! Lenin would have cried. Poor man, he died watching his country fall to hellfire. It's sad.

H&S forever,
-PC

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What's TL;DR mean?

It stands for Too Long; Didn't Read.

[PCommie]

It stands for Too Long; Didn't Read.

Oh. I get that reaction a lot. :D

-PC

[Black Dagger]

USSR wasn't socialist after Lenin. Stal was totalitarian,

Why? It was Lenin's regime not Stalin's who first outlawed the anarchist press, imprisoned and murdered anarchists. Is that 'socialism'?

[RGacky3]

Ultimately your objection, stripped down to its bare essentials, is that there is a person/class that is profiting from your labor....a profit that you do not get yourself. We can bypass the concept of "money" completely here and equate "profit" with "commodity consumption", since a capitalist's money inevitably becomes a consumable commodity in that he too buys things with that money. Now your argument becomes: I do not want to support the consumption habits of another person with my labor. The basis of your argument is that a capitalist does not labor himself....but has the opportunity to use commodities through the medium of money...which he makes from exploiting workers.

That AND unjustified authority (they go hand in hand).


Now I ask you: what is the fundamental difference between being exploited by a capitalist class and equalized to others in a working class that might not produce as much as yourself?

Equal in authority and rights ....


Here the same objection should occur, because still you are creating the privilege for others who are not laboring as much as yourself to consume as much as yourself or more, without having provided the same amount of labor.

If you work X amount of hours and produce Y amount of commodities, while another person works X amount of hours and produces Z amount of commodities, and the maximum allowance of commodity possession for a worker allowed by the state is W, then the worker who produces Z amount of commodities is equal to the worker who produces Y amount of commodities, and both get Z amount of commodities to consume despite the amount of labor they invest in production.

What is the difference between working for a capitalist who consumes as much or more than yourself by using the money he makes from your labor to buy commodities, and working with and beside another worker who consumes as much or more than yourself while working less?

The "other worker" is synonymous to the "capitalist" here.

The only difference between these two conditions is that in the former...you have the opportunity to make a higher wage, and therefore consume more, while in the latter you do not have the opportunity to make a higher wage or consume more without the permission of the state.

Suddenly, the capitalist system becomes the superior system for the proletariat who is better skilled than another proletariat.

If you look closely at what I have just shown you, you will see that your objection is not resolved by communism but instead is worsened.

Dare I say that the real solution to this problem is to both preserve the integrity of the better skilled worker and his right to be rewarded according to his own personal effort....and eliminate the possibility of a single person profiting from the labor of another person while not laboring himself?

Perhaps this can be done by state controlled corporations, which retain the right to subordinate a corporation at any time to be used for the advantage of the entire society? Intervals of redistribution of the wealth of corporations, and/or increased taxing for corporations while decreased taxing for the working classes? Free education and medical care for everyone. Free mandatory housing. All of this funded by the taxes paid by corporations.

Is it all coming together for you now? Do you see it and say "aha!"?

The incentive remains for everyone- working classes are enthusiastic about their work because they know they can progress, and corporations are put in "check" by the state so they do not mutate into supercapitalist structures.

In a communist system everyone is leveled, equalized, turned into a drone. In a capitalist system the majority gets fucked. In this system......well, what would we call such a system?

[ crosses fingers ]

You don't know what communism is AT ALL, it has NOTHING to do with everyone getting the same. It is equality and freedom, and equality in CONTROL OVER THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION AND LAND, i.e. equal rights (the same way theoretically we all have equal control over the government).

Seriously, writing a long elegant philisophical paragraph, based on such ignorance about the topic just makes you look really stupid.

[Kronos]

Slower traffic keep right.

[RGacky3]

Slower traffic keep right.

Why not learn what we believe in before arguing against nothing.

[Kronos]

My good man, not only do I know what "we believe in", but I could explain, argue and defend your beliefs better than most of you could yourselves.

If I am not a communist it is not because I do not understand the theory, but because I understand the theory and find it incomprehensible in practice.

I have been in and out of Revleft for over four years, and I assure you I have a very firm grasp on communist theory.

And........I have a Mao t-shirt too.

[RGacky3]

My good man, not only do I know what "we believe in", but I could explain, argue and defend your beliefs better than most of you could yourselves.

No you could'nt. Stop pretending your an enlightened philosopher.



If I am not a communist it is not because I do not understand the theory, but because I understand the theory and find it incomprehensible in practice.

I have been in and out of Revleft for over four years, and I assure you I have a very firm grasp on communist theory.


well lets see.


In a communist system everyone is leveled, equalized, turned into a drone. In a capitalist system the majority gets fucked. In this system......well, what would we call such a system?

No one believes in that. A communist system is about abolishing private property, and democratizing the workplace, not about everyone is equal and gets the same of everything.


If you work X amount of hours and produce Y amount of commodities, while another person works X amount of hours and produces Z amount of commodities, and the maximum allowance of commodity possession for a worker allowed by the state is W, then the worker who produces Z amount of commodities is equal to the worker who produces Y amount of commodities, and both get Z amount of commodities to consume despite the amount of labor they invest in production.


Who is talking about equal pay for everyone here? Or pay at all? Communism abolishes money (at least as we know it under Capitalism).


equalized

I'll repeat EQUAL IN RIGHTS AND AUTHORITY. Not the rediculous thing your talking about, everyone getting paid the same.


Is it all coming together for you now? Do you see it and say "aha!"?

your not enlightenend, your not a philosopher, you don't understand communism, and I doubt you understand capitalism either, your just a condesending asshole who is condesending about something of which he has no clue.

[Kronos]

well lets see.

You are welcome to read my post history from years ago...under the screen name "Epoche", if you desire.

Right now I'm killing time and waiting to go see my probation officer, so I don't want to get involved in heavy thinking right now. I want to drink my coffee and bullshit for a few minutes, that's it.

We'll have our debates, G, so relax.

[RGacky3]

We'll have our debates, G, so relax.

They can start with you answering my posts.

[SummerOfRage]

Anarchists want communism bottom-up. Marxists/Communists want communists opposed from above. Those two things are ultimately uncompatible, which is why the whole working class history speaks of conflicts between the two.

That doesn't mean I don't work with communists. Many of them are fine guys, and in general, their motives are good. The only problem is that they are so easily corrupted when a "charismatic leader" comes along. I can work with individual communists, but I try to avoid communist organisations as much as possible. That's probably another major difference: anarchists base their alliances on personal feelings, communists seem to institutionalise everything for the sake of institutionalising.

That being said, I think communists of all sorts should thank us anarchists on their bare knees for actually even be willing to work with y'all. If I check the history of the anarchist movement, I cannot help but think that the commies killed more of us than the fascists. We've been killed, tortured, emprisonned, used and tossed aside when our work was done (in both Spain and Ukraine), discredited, slandered, ...

It's also bullshit to say we could live with Marx and Lenin, but not with Stalin and the rest. It was Marx who threw us out of the International. It was Lenin who persecuted us so much that there was barely anything left for him to persecute. Communist leaders have proven to be pricks in the past. (Notable exception is perhaps Subcommandante Marcos of the Zapatistas, but he's very close to anarchism).

And I can't help but think that many over here either do not know what the fuck they're talking about or otherwise talk for the sake of talking.

[Kronos]

They can start with you answering my posts.

Let's do it.


A communist system is about abolishing private property, and democratizing the workplace, not about everyone is equal and gets the same of everything.

Strangely enough, the distribution of property to the people by the state is only different from a capitalist system in that such property cannot be used to facilitate any productive capacity, any means to produce something.

In a communist system a person still "owns" the commodities in his possession in so far as the state doesn't repossess them. With the exception of his housing and land, a person can pretty much do what they want with what they have- car, TV, stereo, toaster, lawn mower, lave lamp, etc.

So really this isn't an accurate way of describing communism- "abolishing private property". A better way would be to explain it as a system that doesn't allow anybody to own some asset that could be used in the production of a commodity or to generate some sort of profit. Such things like rental land, factories, machines that produce things that can be distributed.

Now hold that thought for a moment. Next we have determine what kind of monetary system will be used, if any at all. If there is some kind of currency, then the state will only be able to prevent large scale exploitation (by preventing the means to privately produce anything), but wouldn't be able to prevent small scale forms of mercantilism. For example, if my neighbor liked my stereo and wanted to buy it...I could sell it to him right under the nose of the state. I could also pay my neighbor to pull the weeds from my garden...right under the nose of the state. What I couldn't do, however, is amass any legal means to generate money by selling something produced by someone else on a large scale. But I could give someone five dollars to fix my lawn mower, which I paid five dollars for, and then sell the mower to my neighbor for eleven dollars and make a one dollar profit from the labor of the guy who fixed it.

If no note currency is used and something like a digital credit system is used instead, the same kind of transactions can occur on a small scale. If my neighbor is low on credits and wants a new stereo, and I have a broken mower that would cost me five credits to get fixed, I could get him to fix the mower in exchange for me buying him a stereo that costs four credits.....and save one credit in the exchange.

In order to fully prevent these little transactions a monetary system would have to be completely abolished....and that would make things extremely difficult...especially if communism employs the principle "only according to his needs".

How does a democratic system determine what someone actually needs? Does it simply respond to a persons request? Does it depend on a majority of people agreeing that a person needs such and such?

A person needs medical attention and education, surely, but does that person need a new model car, or a bigger housing facility, or two TVs, or a larger plot of land?

What if the person in question does not produce as much as his neighbor, because of a disability, while the neighbor tells the state he needs a bigger TV......does the state determine that the neighbor can have the bigger TV because he is more productive than the other guy.....and of so, the principle "each according to his need" is therefore directly proportionate to "each according to his ability". In this case, people are not technically equal, but may be treated as such....and the guy who produces more than the other guy who is disabled, but consumes as much, is going to be pissed when he is denied that bigger TV because the state can't give everyone a bigger TV.


I'll repeat EQUAL IN RIGHTS AND AUTHORITY.

You are making blanket statements which you don't fully understand. Both capitalism and communism are representational democracies in principle. This means as an exploited proletariat in a capitalist system you have as much authority as you would in a communism (in fact you would have less is a communism...but for other reasons) because you would be a voter. The fact that you are exploited in the capitalist system is technically only the result of you being incapable of becoming a capitalist yourself....in a society that provides the means and opportunities to do so.

That you wouldn't become a capitalist because of your principles, or because you think it is unethical is irrelevant- the opportunity to do so is not based on relative or absolute moral principles. Such things are neither here or there. The fact is you have the right to pursue your own business.

And "equal in rights" is just another blanket statement. You lack the critical analytical skills to imagine how such a principle would translate literally into a working society. You are just parroting what you read in the manifesto.

Again, what is meant by the term "equal"? And what is meant by the term "rights"?


your not enlightenend, your not a philosopher

I once was, Gacky, a long time ago. But I have discovered that philosophy is nothing more than a "house of cards", as Wittgenstein put it.

[ sigh ]


your just a condesending asshole

Well I've never.

[RGacky3]

Strangely enough, the distribution of property to the people by the state is only different from a capitalist system in that such property cannot be used to facilitate any productive capacity, any means to produce something.


Your talking to an Anarchist here, which means, I don't believe in the "distribution of property to the people by the state" I believe in the dismanteling of the state, and the Capitalist system, and the taking over of the means of production by the people. So your arguing the wrong argument, again.


In a communist system a person still "owns" the commodities in his possession in so far as the state doesn't repossess them. With the exception of his housing and land, a person can pretty much do what they want with what they have- car, TV, stereo, toaster, lawn mower, lave lamp, etc.

See above, I'm an anarchist.


A better way would be to explain it as a system that doesn't allow anybody to own some asset that could be used in the production of a commodity or to generate some sort of profit. Such things like rental land, factories, machines that produce things that can be distributed.


Nope, again, see Anarchist spain, thats the type of communism I'm talkin about.


Now hold that thought for a moment. Next we have determine what kind of monetary system will be used, if any at all. If there is some kind of currency, then the state will only be able to prevent large scale exploitation (by preventing the means to privately produce anything), but wouldn't be able to prevent small scale forms of mercantilism. For example, if my neighbor liked my stereo and wanted to buy it...I could sell it to him right under the nose of the state. I could also pay my neighbor to pull the weeds from my garden...right under the nose of the state. What I couldn't do, however, is amass any legal means to generate money by selling something produced by someone else on a large scale. But I could give someone five dollars to fix my lawn mower, which I paid five dollars for, and then sell the mower to my neighbor for eleven dollars and make a one dollar profit from the labor of the guy who fixed it.

If no note currency is used and something like a digital credit system is used instead, the same kind of transactions can occur on a small scale. If my neighbor is low on credits and wants a new stereo, and I have a broken mower that would cost me five credits to get fixed, I could get him to fix the mower in exchange for me buying him a stereo that costs four credits.....and save one credit in the exchange.

In order to fully prevent these little transactions a monetary system would have to be completely abolished....and that would make things extremely difficult...especially if communism employs the principle "only according to his needs".

First of all, like I said, I also believe in dismanteling the state along with Capitalism (they go hand in hand).

Also when you get into no private property laws the nature of productio changes, whats produced in a community is not for profit, it can't be because there are no private property laws, so the only reason to produce would be for actual wants and needs of the community. Whats the motivation for satisfying the needs of the community? Because the community is satisfying your needs. If you are good at making shoes, you'll make shoes, maybe someone else farms, maybe he does 2 things, then people produce what they need and consume what they need and if there are extras, or if they wan to produce extras, they can enjoy them as well.

There are many non hiarchal methods for doing this, councils, consensus, a type of free trade market, direct democracy, voluntary association and so on and so forth. The guy fixing stereos fixes the stereo because thats his function in society, thats what he's good at, chances are he takes pride in i too, and he also knows that the guy he's fixing it for also does what he can.

Also keep in mind that because profit motive is'nt an issue, things can be made more efficiently for the comfort of everyone, (not just those that can afford it), and also there would be less work needed to be done.

Before you point out how that could'nt work, I'd like to point out probably the only country in the world right now that is doing better economically, Norway, a country where you really don't have to work (yet it has very low unemployment, people still produce, and rather well), where work is very very laid back, and where the profit motive is very much reduced compared to the rest of the world, and where wages for "working class jobs" are very high, and where people have much more of a say over their working conditions (unions are very strong), and the walfare if extreamly generous. Guess what, the country is doing great, living standards are the best in the world.

Thats not my goal of coarse, social democracy, my goal is Anarchism, (obviously a much more extreme version of both socialism and democracy).


How does a democratic system determine what someone actually needs? Does it simply respond to a persons request? Does it depend on a majority of people agreeing that a person needs such and such?

A person needs medical attention and education, surely, but does that person need a new model car, or a bigger housing facility, or two TVs, or a larger plot of land?


No, it depends whats being produced, how much of it, and what he really wants or desires.

Might there be inequalities? Sure, might there be disagreements? perhaps. does that justify Capitalism and the State? Not at all.


What if the person in question does not produce as much as his neighbor, because of a disability, while the neighbor tells the state he needs a bigger TV......does the state determine that the neighbor can have the bigger TV because he is more productive than the other guy.....and of so, the principle "each according to his need" is therefore directly proportionate to "each according to his ability". In this case, people are not technically equal, but may be treated as such....and the guy who produces more than the other guy who is disabled, but consumes as much, is going to be pissed when he is denied that bigger TV because the state can't give everyone a bigger TV.


Again not the state, I'm an anarchism.


This means as an exploited proletariat in a capitalist system you have as much authority as you would in a communism (in fact you would have less is a communism...but for other reasons) because you would be a voter. The fact that you are exploited in the capitalist system is technically only the result of you being incapable of becoming a capitalist yourself....in a society that provides the means and opportunities to do so.

First of all, Capitalism is global, so you can't just take one country as an example, second of all. In the USSR, technically, anyone could become a party beurocrat, now are you going to sat that justifies the beurocracies power? I don't think so.


That you wouldn't become a capitalist because of your principles, or because you think it is unethical is irrelevant- the opportunity to do so is not based on relative or absolute moral principles. Such things are neither here or there. The fact is you have the right to pursue your own business.

And "equal in rights" is just another blanket statement. You lack the critical analytical skills to imagine how such a principle would translate literally into a working society. You are just parroting what you read in the manifesto.

Again, what is meant by the term "equal"? And what is meant by the term "rights"?

Would I become a capitalist if a had the chance? perhaps, then again, I might become a king if a had the chance too :P.

What I mean by equal in rights, I mean equal rights over the means of production and resources. Which means if 2 people have interests in a certain resource they must work it out, one person can't just claim rights to it, and violently oppress the other if he does'nt respect those claims.

The same way, here in America (in theory) We have an equal vote, whether or not we use it is a different thing. Its the same concept with communism.

But before you answer, remember, you are not talking to a marxist-leninist, nor a marxist. So you cannot use your cookie-cutter anti USSR arguments, nor can you tell me what I believe in and then argue against that. I'm an Anarcho-syndicalist, and a libertarian communist, so if your going to debate you have to debate against that, so stop bringing up "the state".


You lack the critical analytical skills


your just a condesending asshole Well I've never.

[Kronos]

I'm an Anarcho-syndicalist

Oh, I didn't know that. In that case, sorry to bother you.

Anarchists are fun to hang-out and commit crimes with, but they are basically incapable of political debate....simply because their position is paradoxical.

Never before in history has an anarchist state existed as it is defined by Proudhon, Kropotkin, and Bakunin (the central theorists), and only during dissonant periods of political upheaval and disturbance has such theory come to life.

Translation: it is an impossible system (or lack thereof) conceived of in circumstances where societies were on the verge of class war.

This means that an anarchist is essentially a closet socialist, whether he knows it or not, because his contempt for monarchy and capitalism is not a contempt for politics in general....only a certain kind of politics which produce class divisions. Rather than having the intelligence to conceive of the impossibility of a social contract without law and ordinance, he resists politics at any cost and remains the antipode of government.

That and they wear spiked leather jackets and listen to the Sex Pistols.

[SummerOfRage]

Oh, I didn't know that. In that case, sorry to bother you.

Anarchists are fun to hang-out and commit crimes with, but they are basically incapable of political debate....simply because their position is paradoxical.

Never before in history has an anarchist state existed as it is defined by Proudhon, Kropotkin, and Bakunin (the central theorists), and only during dissonant periods of political upheaval and disturbance has such theory come to life.

Translation: it is an impossible system (or lack thereof) conceived of in circumstances where societies were on the verge of class war.

This means that an anarchist is essentially a closet socialist, whether he knows it or not, because his contempt for monarchy and capitalism is not a contempt for politics in general....only a certain kind of politics which produce class divisions. Rather than having the intelligence to conceive of the impossibility of a social contract without law and ordinance, he resists politics at any cost and remains the antipode of government.

That and they wear spiked leather jackets and listen to the Sex Pistols.

Never has an anarchist society of the Bakunin/Kropotkin kind existed for a long time on a large scale. That doesn't mean they never existed, they were simply crushed by brutal force. That doesn't mean they don't exist now, you're just too blind to seem them. There's literally thousands of anarchist collectives, ranging from 5 to hundreds of participants. Thousands if you count in certain primitivist tribes in Africa (who are perfectly happy despite the fact that we look upon them as little more than animals. are you happy? really?)
Not to mention the fact that anarchists have been pivotal in the antiglobalist movement, the ecologist movement, the feminist movement, the open source movement, the gay and transgender rights movement, etcetera.

But yes, whatever, we're just irrelevant, aren't we?

Let's take a simple example: squatting. Clearly an anarchist strategy, since it neglects all laws in favor of your own needs. Without this strategy, millions would find themselves homeless.
Health care for illegal people, free software, we've provided people with just about everything. To say that anarchism is utopian is simply a lie. Without anarchism your world would collapse under the anger of a people.

(And just so you know: Bakunin and others were great thinkers. But their definition of what an anarchist society should look like is completely irrelevant. As they would certainly tell you themselves, if they'd still live.)

[Kronos]

But yes, whatever, we're just irrelevant, aren't we?

Oh no man, I didn't say that. We have a common enemy so we conspire together for power, we unite against that common enemy. The problem arises once the war is won; our definitions of what a society should be like are conflicting. Though I suspect that in the proper socialist society those anarchist tendencies would diminish....since many of the things you find contemptible would no longer exist. Then you would relax, take your leather jacket and bat utility belt off, and come out of the closet to join your comrades.

[SummerOfRage]

Oh no man, I didn't say that. We have a common enemy so we conspire together for power, we unite against that common enemy. The problem arises once the war is won; our definitions of what a society should be like are conflicting. Though I suspect that in the proper socialist society those anarchist tendencies would diminish....since many of the things you find contemptible would no longer exist. Then you would relax, take your leather jacket and bat utility belt off, and come out of the closet to join your comrades.

"A proper socialist society"? Anarchism has disappeared in any socialist society, proper or not. Through repression. There's been a bit too much examples of that for me to believe in proper socialism.

[RGacky3]

but they are basically incapable of political debate....simply because their position is paradoxical.


Ok, learn what paradoxical means, then tell me how it is paradoxical.


That and they wear spiked leather jackets and listen to the Sex Pistols.

Not really, and psudo-philosophers like you sit in coffee shops to get noticed, wear turtlenecks and don't get laid (see we can all make unjustified generalizations).


Never before in history has an anarchist state existed as it is defined by Proudhon, Kropotkin, and Bakunin (the central theorists), and only during dissonant periods of political upheaval and disturbance has such theory come to life.

Well the Zapatista territories came about in a time of relative peace and have lasted over 15 years doing pretty well.


Translation: it is an impossible system (or lack thereof) conceived of in circumstances where societies were on the verge of class war.

How so? First of all, all revolutions come about when societies are on the verge of class war (thats what revolution is). How is it impossible?

Every Anarchist society that existed did just fine until a MILITARY FOCE (meaning guns and cannons and tanks) forcible took them down, they did'nt dissend into chaos, a strong man did'nt take over from within, production did'nt ocme to a halt, or all these other things capitalists and statists predict will happen. So please explain to me, HOW it is impossible.


This means that an anarchist is essentially a closet socialist, whether he knows it or not, because his contempt for monarchy and capitalism is not a contempt for politics in general....only a certain kind of politics which produce class divisions. Rather than having the intelligence to conceive of the impossibility of a social contract without law and ordinance, he resists politics at any cost and remains the antipode of government.


How does "this" mean that an anarchist is esseitiall a closet socialist? Whats the connectio your making, there is not one.

Its not a contempt for only monarchy and Capitalism, its a contempt for all poetics, all unjustified authority.

Also had you had any knowledge of anarchism at all, you would understand that anarchism involves lots of ordinance and social contracts.

Also please explain the impossibility, instead of just saying its impossible without any proof.

Instead of just being a condesnding knuckle head saying things like "oh your just to dumb to understand this simple truth" why not give actual real reasonings, logical arguments and/or examples behind your baseless statements.


Though I suspect that in the proper socialist society those anarchist tendencies would diminish....since many of the things you find contemptible would no longer exist. Then you would relax, take your leather jacket and bat utility belt off, and come out of the closet to join your comrades.

Read a history book, about almost every leninist revolution in history, and what happend to the anarchists, which clearly you hav'nt.

Also, do you know what anarcho-syndicalism is? (I suspect you don't) Read it up, then come back.

[Kronos]

Not really, and psudo-philosophers like you sit in coffee shops to get noticed, wear turtlenecks and don't get laid

Is that the impression I gave you? You think I'm the guy who wears a pocket protector? Awesome. That's actually a compliment, sir. I've always wanted to be the studious nerd type. Instead, I turned out to be a juvenile delinquent from an abusive household, incarcerated from age twelve to sixteen, high school dropout, construction worker, convicted felon (did 171 days in county), thief, drifter, pot-head (I quit though), musician, and.....[wait for it].....revolutionary.

To summarize my philosophical position I might call myself a "Nietzschean Fundamentalist", if there is such a thing, which makes some things extraordinarily in common for us...and others...extraordinarily uncommon.

[RGacky3]

Is that the impression I gave you? You think I'm the guy who wears a pocket protector? Awesome. That's actually a compliment, sir. I've always wanted to be the studious nerd type. Instead, I turned out to be a juvenile delinquent from an abusive household, incarcerated from age twelve to sixteen, high school dropout, construction worker, convicted felon (did 171 days in county), thief, drifter, pot-head (I quit though), musician, and.....[wait for it].....revolutionary.

To summarize my philosophical position I might call myself a "Nietzschean Fundamentalist", if there is such a thing, which makes some things extraordinarily in common for us...and others...extraordinarily uncommon.

Good for you, get to my points please.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Is that the impression I gave you? You think I'm the guy who wears a pocket protector? Awesome. That's actually a compliment, sir. I've always wanted to be the studious nerd type.

Armchair philosophers aren't the "studious nerd type". They merely make themselves sound smart with a load of bafflegab and bullshit in order to cover up the fact that they haven't got a single original thought in their heads.


To summarize my philosophical position I might call myself a "Nietzschean Fundamentalist", if there is such a thing, which makes some things extraordinarily in common for us...and others...extraordinarily uncommon.Case in point.

[Jack]

I thank you, comrade, for the link, but I'm not reading 10+ chapters of book just to find out how anarchists model their government when you could simply explain it in a sentence or two. No offense, I guess I'm just lazy. ;)

Could you explain the entire structure of any society in one sentence?

[Jack]

It is subjugation of the interests of the existing bourgeoisie to dispossess them. Of course we don't repress the 'former bourgeoisie', that's not a class.

By that logic would a rapist have his interest subjugated by the person they were attempting to rape if the would be raped successfully fought him off?

[ckaihatsu]

Could you explain the entire structure of any society in one sentence?


Can't resist -- here's one, from my CouchSurfing profile:





I'm basically a structural materialist, so I've come to refine the nature of reality into the exclusively existing three categories of ADMINISTRATION / MANAGEMENT, LABOR, and PLEASURE. Any conceivable human thought or activity will fall into one of these three categories, or a combination of them.

http://www.couchsurfing.org/people/ckaihatsu/


Chris





--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[Kronos]

to cover up the fact that they haven't got a single original thought in their heads.

Says the "communist". Yeah that's original alright.

I mentioned my greatest mentor, Nietzsche, so that Gacky, if he felt inclined, might orient himself with what I have learned, and therefore save me the trouble of trying to make futile attempts to undermine his anarchism.

I am no crony to Nietzsche though. I disagree on many points with Nietzsche, but of all philosophers, I agree on more points with him as well.

Gacky, I don't want to continue walking in circles with you so forgive me if I decline the offer. I stand by my position that large scale anarchy will forever be impossible. It might work a while for three thousand indigenous trigger-happy mexican hippies, but never for the entire world. Anarchy is leftist romanticism fit for angry young people or stubborn old people....who stopped intellectually maturing somewhere around the time they realized they wasted the first twenty years of their life sitting around a camp fire stoned on Three Dog Night, and therefore wouldn't become anything but a low wage worker, anyway. One can only ask themself at this point "why stop now"?

[Pogue]

I think the main greivance between libertarian communists and all others is that we've moved on from desperately lapping up everything a 'great man' once said whereas they are still stuck doing so, leading to some very rubbish and unimaginative politics on their behalf, and odd positions like bigging up the DPRK.

We rep the class and they rep the state fo sho!

[RGacky3]

I mentioned my greatest mentor, Nietzsche, so that Gacky, if he felt inclined, might orient himself with what I have learned, and therefore save me the trouble of trying to make futile attempts to undermine his anarchism.

I know Nietzsche somewhat (not a lot, but basic stuff), but I'm not talking to Nietzsche, I'm talking to you, and I brought up points that you seam incabable of addressing, perhaps because Nietzshe did'nt write about them.


Gacky, I don't want to continue walking in circles with you so forgive me if I decline the offer. I stand by my position that large scale anarchy will forever be impossible.

You hav'nt once given my any reasoning and backing behind your position.


It might work a while for three thousand indigenous trigger-happy mexican hippies, but never for the entire world.

Again with the condesending bigotrist douche baggery, again, thats not an argument, saing "Its impossible" is'nt an argument.


Anarchy is leftist romanticism fit for angry young people or stubborn old people....who stopped intellectually maturing somewhere around the time they realized they wasted the first twenty years of their life sitting around a camp fire stoned on Three Dog Night, and therefore wouldn't become anything but a low wage worker, anyway. One can only ask themself at this point "why stop now"?

Ok its clear, that you cannot answer any of my points, and must resort to bullshit stereotyping instead. So ... looks like your not so smart after all.

I'm sorry I brought up points that cannot be answered by jerking off too philosophy books and actually require some mental effort.

Now either answer actual points brought up or go back to jerking off to nietzche, a wonderful mentor, what great footsteps to follow.

[Kronos]

Maybe you missed it, Gacky, but in the few words we've exchanged so far I made it clear that I don't believe people are "intrinsically egalitarian" and provided an argument for that. I also gave practical examples of how a communist society would function, and pointed out very simple problems pertaining to property and work. Finally I argued that a "stateless" society would be impossible, and in defining what a state was, I showed that anarchy is an oxymoron- it is a condition of civil contract but without laws. And yet if there are laws, it isn't anarchy.

The facts is, people are not equal, and without an authority base superceding all citizens, life in civilization would be "short and brutish", as Hobbes put it. I admire anarchists, but eventually any society that did not have a rule of law, and an authority licensed to enforce that law, would disintegrate into savage chaos.

My decision to void the argument was made when I realized you are failing to grasp what I am saying. And as I walk away...you shout at my back "you've provided no argument!" I did though. I think you missed it.

[RGacky3]

but in the few words we've exchanged so far I made it clear that I don't believe people are "intrinsically egalitarian" and provided an argument for that.

What does being "intrinsically egalitarian" have anything to do with it? Why would that be an argument for or against Anarchism? Also that has nothing to do with my arguments such as


Also when you get into no private property laws the nature of productio changes, whats produced in a community is not for profit, it can't be because there are no private property laws, so the only reason to produce would be for actual wants and needs of the community. Whats the motivation for satisfying the needs of the community? Because the community is satisfying your needs. If you are good at making shoes, you'll make shoes, maybe someone else farms, maybe he does 2 things, then people produce what they need and consume what they need and if there are extras, or if they wan to produce extras, they can enjoy them as well.

There are many non hiarchal methods for doing this, councils, consensus, a type of free trade market, direct democracy, voluntary association and so on and so forth. The guy fixing stereos fixes the stereo because thats his function in society, thats what he's good at, chances are he takes pride in i too, and he also knows that the guy he's fixing it for also does what he can.

Also keep in mind that because profit motive is'nt an issue, things can be made more efficiently for the comfort of everyone, (not just those that can afford it), and also there would be less work needed to be done.

Before you point out how that could'nt work, I'd like to point out probably the only country in the world right now that is doing better economically, Norway, a country where you really don't have to work (yet it has very low unemployment, people still produce, and rather well), where work is very very laid back, and where the profit motive is very much reduced compared to the rest of the world, and where wages for "working class jobs" are very high, and where people have much more of a say over their working conditions (unions are very strong), and the walfare if extreamly generous. Guess what, the country is doing great, living standards are the best in the world.

As to why Anarchism could and does work.

Also when you talk about eganitarianism or whatever, keep in mind what we are talking about, as I said


What I mean by equal in rights, I mean equal rights over the means of production and resources. Which means if 2 people have interests in a certain resource they must work it out, one person can't just claim rights to it, and violently oppress the other if he does'nt respect those claims.

The same way, here in America (in theory) We have an equal vote, whether or not we use it is a different thing. Its the same concept with communism.


The facts is, people are not equal, and without an authority base superceding all citizens, life in civilization would be "short and brutish", as Hobbes put it. I admire anarchists, but eventually any society that did not have a rule of law, and an authority licensed to enforce that law, would disintegrate into savage chaos.

Is there any evidence of that? Because right now thats just your opinion. Whereas every anarchist society, even relatively primative ones did'nt disintegrate into savage chaos, so there goes your argument based on simple emperical evidence.

Also your saying that is assuming that governments, capialists, and hiarchies in general actually prevent more violence than they cause, which is empirically not the case first of all, second of all logically its not the case, that is if you believe in the statement "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Which I'm assumin you do.


My decision to void the argument was made when I realized you are failing to grasp what I am saying. And as I walk away...you shout at my back "you've provided no argument!" I did though. I think you missed it.

Those weren't arguments, they were statements, without any backing, simple opinions, which arn't arguments. I grasped exactly what you were saying, thats why I took the time to write responses which have so far been ignored by you in favor of repeasing baseless statements and condesending wordplay.

[Kronos]

What does being "intrinsically egalitarian" have anything to do with it?It significantly changes the basis of the argument if your premise is that people are "naturally selfless". Empathy, sympathy and compassion at the expense of one's own gain are not the original stimulus to any action- and even as secondary effects, they too are prompted by measures to obtain self gratification. One has sympathy and compassion because one "ought to be moral", therefore the charitable act is secretly for advancing oneself. Only in the rarest cases does a true act of "altruistic empathy" occur, and these cases are few and far between. Exceptions like risking one's own safety to save a man from a burning building, or a parents risk to save a child, are examples where such an act is not taken directly to advance one's own image, respectability, reputation....as long as the public opinion is not there to judge.

If you get a group of people who are unequal and naturally selfish and put them into a situation where they must "share" unconditionally, you will have problems, unless there is a power above and beyond to enforce that condition, to provide a threat, to keep the people obedient.


Also when you get into no private property laws the nature of productio changes, whats produced in a community is not for profit, it can't be because there are no private property laws, so the only reason to produce would be for actual wants and needs of the community.I am a shoemaker, like my neighbor. In one day I produce twice the amount of shoes as he does. Our community has agreed to distribute one TV to every house hold. I wanted to confront the counsel and propose that they let me have two TVs....one for the living room and one for the bed room. The decision was made that everybody would have to get two TVs, to be fair, and that there weren't enough TVs at the time to provide for everyone. I then realized that this means my neighbor, who produces less than me, would get a TV without having increase his rate of production to match the rate of production of myself. Then the though occurred to me: "why am I working so hard and fast when I can get everything I want and need anyway?" I resolved to take my time and work slowly from now on.

In this scenario, there was no incentive for a higher skilled person to work to their best ability. Therefore, in my view, it is an inefficient system.

The formula for decline is here- that the degree of effort required to produce is not determined by contrasting and comparing to the greatest example of productive capacity, as an ideal toward which the worker should aspire, but determined by the bare minimum productive capacity provided by the worst, average worker.

The benefit gained through the costs of the greatest workers does not exceed the benefit gained by the efforts of the worst workers. A formula for the systematic, eventual decline of productive integrity through a complete leveling of the people.


Is there any evidence of that? Because right now thats just your opinion. Whereas every anarchist society, even relatively primative ones did'nt disintegrate into savage chaos, so there goes your argument based on simple emperical evidence.

Also your saying that is assuming that governments, capialists, and hiarchies in general actually prevent more violence than they cause, which is empirically not the case first of all, second of all logically its not the case, that is if you believe in the statement "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Which I'm assumin you do.The possibility of disorganization and dissidence in a society increases proportionately to the increase in population and the increase in the complexities of the modes of production.

A small rural group of a few thousand people who's greatest industrial power is baking bread in a stone oven can function quite well in a very primitive social state. But ten million people with immense industrial capabilities and extremely complex modes of production, distribution, management, and administration require rules and regulation as complicated as the material circumstances they find themselves in.

The fact is, in a primitive anarchist society...not much can go wrong, so not much is needed to organize and regulate affairs.


Those weren't arguments, they were statements, without any backing, simple opinions, which arn't arguments.Actually they were. A statement is generally made in an argumentative form, as it is claiming that something is "the case" about the world. Only two kinds of statements cannot be argumentative- commands and questions. The "backing", as you call it, would be the reasoning which leads from the premise to the proposed conclusion. I did that too. You missed that too.

An opinion is a statement and can also be an argument, although the form and implications of the argument are a little different than arguments which propose to prove indifferent conclusions about something. For example, I could argue my opinion that "Mao is a hottie", and you could argue that he is not. However, we cannot argue that the premise "hottie" is true or false, because it is a subjective preference. For you he might look like ass....therefore "hottie" is not an absolute property of Mao that can be correct or incorrect, and we would be wasting our time.

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

[RGacky3]

It significantly changes the basis of the argument if your premise is that people are "naturally selfless".

Thats not the premise.


If you get a group of people who are unequal and naturally selfish and put them into a situation where they must "share" unconditionally, you will have problems, unless there is a power above and beyond to enforce that condition, to provide a threat, to keep the people obedient.

Who said anything about forcing people to share? In a communist society, sharing replaces trade as a nessesary function of society. Without hiarchies sharing is inevitable because life generally requires human interaction and association.

When you say a group of people that are unequal what do you mean by that? Unequal in what sense?


In this scenario, there was no incentive for a higher skilled person to work to their best ability. Therefore, in my view, it is an inefficient system.

Your assuming that people get no satisfaction from free labor, which is clearly not the case. Your assuming also that there is MORE satisfaction when you are working directly for someone elses profit, as is the case for over 90% of the people in the world under capitalism.

So sure he might take his time in working, I agree, but I doubt that because people in general work better when they are their own boss, and when they are reaping the benefits of their work.

Capitalism people work as little as they can for as much, because the work is'nt for themselves, its for someone else, the only thing that keeps them in line is fear. Now maybe that system is more "efficient" but then you have to ask your self, for whome? Clearly not the 95% who have no control over the means of production and don't have nealy the amount of cash to have any sway on the market. Its "efficient" really only for the capitalist class and the rich (mostly one in the same).


The possibility of disorganization and dissidence in a society increases proportionately to the increase in population and the increase in the complexities of the modes of production.


Why is that the case? Anarchism worked both in Chiapas with some rural indians and in barcelona. The whole city did'nt interact and vote on every single issue, only those directly involved really, so the principles stay the same. Population really does'nt matter, what matters is population density, for example, take Los Angeles, if people in Southern LA are deciding what they should do with a park, chances are it does'n concern people who live in Glendale, they really don't care.

Also for tecnology, why does it require hiarchy? If someone is good at certain technology or industry, you don't think people would allow that person responsibility over it? Any less than a "leader" would?

you missed this.


Also your saying that is assuming that governments, capialists, and hiarchies in general actually prevent more violence than they cause, which is empirically not the case first of all, second of all logically its not the case, that is if you believe in the statement "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Which I'm assumin you do.

And this


Before you point out how that could'nt work, I'd like to point out probably the only country in the world right now that is doing better economically, Norway, a country where you really don't have to work (yet it has very low unemployment, people still produce, and rather well), where work is very very laid back, and where the profit motive is very much reduced compared to the rest of the world, and where wages for "working class jobs" are very high, and where people have much more of a say over their working conditions (unions are very strong), and the walfare if extreamly generous. Guess what, the country is doing great, living standards are the best in the world.

and this


What I mean by equal in rights, I mean equal rights over the means of production and resources. Which means if 2 people have interests in a certain resource they must work it out, one person can't just claim rights to it, and violently oppress the other if he does'nt respect those claims.

The same way, here in America (in theory) We have an equal vote, whether or not we use it is a different thing. Its the same concept with communism.


Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

No it was'nt see now that your discussing the same thing as me, and discussing things relevant to the argument we can actually (hopefully) have a productive discussion.

[Kronos]

Who said anything about forcing people to share? In a communist society, sharing replaces trade as a nessesary function of society. Without hiarchies sharing is inevitable because life generally requires human interaction and association.

"Sharing" is too ambiguous to be the foundational principle on which commodity exchange and distribution rests. Who decides how much to give, to produce, to deserve? I say I deserve more than you. Who's to say I don't? You? But your word is no better than mine.

Sharing is only feasible where equal powers interact in production. Where there are people who possess unequal talents and skills interacting in production, there are no axioms or principles to refer to when determining what the "proper" act of sharing might be. Where people are unequal in performance, a system must exist where possession of commodities is determined by merit, by what is earned, not by some obscure principle like "sharing".

A monetary system is superior to some abstract notion of "sharing". "Sharing" means- even though I can't produce as much as you....I should still get as much as you. Bullshit. To a skilled worker a comrade can be as much of a parasite as a capitalist.


Your assuming that people get no satisfaction from free labor, which is clearly not the case.

The pretext to charity and volunteer labor is that first, it is needed and is considered a good deed, and second, that such work for free does not compromise one's own welfare.

In a communist system the first is absent and the second becomes a liability. Only where free labor is an exception do people feel encouraged to provide it, and do so with ethical incentive. In a world where there was no third world poverty, for instance, there would be no exception and therefore no need for charity. In a world where there is no need for virtuous charitable work, but consisting of unequal workers who base their commodity exchanges on the principle of sharing, the welfare of the greater workers is compromised by inferior workers- those who produce less are eligible to have as much as those who produce more.


Your assuming also that there is MORE satisfaction when you are working directly for someone elses profit, as is the case for over 90% of the people in the world under capitalism.


No. While the capitalist exploits the worker, the worker still has the opportunity to express his superior talents by operating in a competitive system where there are different degrees of wages. This means that although his work profits the capitalist, it still does not profit the inferior worker. Again, there is no difference between being exploited by a capitalist and being subordinate to an inferior worker...through his right to possess and consume as much without producing as much. Absolutely no difference. The capitalist and the inferior worker are synonymous- both absorb the efforts and energy of the superior worker.


Capitalism people work as little as they can for as much, because the work is'nt for themselves, its for someone else, the only thing that keeps them in line is fear.

You are terribly mistaken. Under any circumstances man will work as little as possible for as much as possible. It is his nature to be efficient- nobody wants to work for the sake of working.

And even in your alternative system, man still isn't working for himself. He is now working for everyone, and this everyone consists of many inferior workers.


Now maybe that system is more "efficient" but then you have to ask your self, for whome?

Capitalism is more efficient than communism, while state socialism is more efficient than capitalism. The conservative right is divisive and creates a class that fully exploits the productive class...while the liberal left is homogeneous and creates a leveled single class that exploits the superior workers within that class. Both systems are decadent.

And ironically, as I said above, the free market system is generally more advantageous to the working class because although they are being exploited by the parasite capitalist, they are not being exploited by inferior workers too. When I build a house, my work profits my boss....but I make higher wages than the redneck trash that works beside me because I am a master carpenter who has an extraordinary work ethic. I don't stand around avoiding work and telling fishing stories because last night I got drunk and now have a hangover, like the other idiots. I'll be damned if I ever exist in a system where that trash is entitled to have as much as myself.

My goal is to abolish both the capitalist and the decadent proletarian class. Both of them are worms.

The rest of your post is a waste of my time. When you realize one day that the future of global politics will involve international socialism rather than a collage of single countries and nations morphing in and out of various political systems....you will see that anarchy is yesterdays news.

There IS NO FUCKING WAY ten billion people can coexist in an anarchist society. Fagettabout it, pal.

[Kronos]

Let me give you an example of my experiences with "inferior workers", and experience that has led me to hold the proletariat in as much contempt as the capitalist.

A few weeks ago I worked for a guy doing a roof-over job. There were four of us in the crew. There was the boss...who didn't lay one shingle and made more money than the other three combined. There was my neighbor, who was an experienced roofer with great skill and work ethic. There was me, and then there was "Adam", some twenty-some year old putz kid from New York who thought he was a gangsta.

The roof was 33 square. I laid 16 square and my neighbor laid 16 square. We did the job in thirteen hours. At the end of the job, I determined that I could of done everything Adam did in addition to what I did, in the same time. Adam was making around ten bucks an hour. I was making fifteen. This means that I was worth twenty-five bucks an hour.

Adam has the "let's milk it" attitude. This is fine to an extent- the worker should in principle take any action possible to put the capitalist at a disadvantage. Adam, as an hourly worker, should work as slow as possible for two reasons- one, to lower the profit margin of the capitalist who is exploiting him....just to spite the parasite. Two, to increase the hours he works, thereby increasing his pay, and to not strain himself or overwork himself.

But there is a point where Adam's lack of work ethic becomes my burden. Adam, in this chain of production, is like a third leg- he does nothing, but accounts for a margin of the payroll of the capitalist. This means that for every hour Adam is on the job, my chances of getting more money is decreased.

Adam is the kind of kid who, in any setting, would still be a putz. Even in the event that he got every dime for the work he did (if he got paid precisely according to the amount of square feet), he would still be the inferior worker....because I would shingle circles around him, and yet he is entitled to "have as much as me"?

Never.

There are workers out there who are inherently worthless. I have no sympathy for this trash, whatsoever. Only in a system where I was able to ascend him, as is my natural right, and where none of my effort went to accommodate his needs/wants at the expense of my own, would I exist with this worm and respect him as I should: as a low ranking worker who must acquire skill and integrity before he has a right to equal share. Instead, the attitude and mentality of this modern consumer/worker is that somehow he has a right to have what everybody else has. Strip away the facade of this dullard, the appearance of "coolness" with his idiom, his dress, his mannerisms, and what you have left is a feeble little worm who struggles to tie his own shoelaces. No, this fuck doesn't "deserve" anything. He is no different than the capitalist when contrasted against me.

[RGacky3]

Who decides how much to give, to produce, to deserve? I say I deserve more than you. Who's to say I don't? You? But your word is no better than mine.


Who decides? The people involved, its not so difficult, democracy. Also your assuming that people (in a communist society) would not want to produce, and would want to aquire more than what would make them comfortable, because there is no power with wealth (or even weath) under communism.


Where there are people who possess unequal talents and skills interacting in production, there are no axioms or principles to refer to when determining what the "proper" act of sharing might be. Where people are unequal in performance, a system must exist where possession of commodities is determined by merit, by what is earned, not by some obscure principle like "sharing".


Without property laws its really irrelivent, also what do you mean by "unequal talents" different skills are needed for different things. I hope your not saying that Capitalism rewards people based on "useful talents and skills" (unless you change it to useful for the ruling class).

Sharing of excess commodities (more than personal possessions) is really a given without property laws.


A monetary system is superior to some abstract notion of "sharing". "Sharing" means- even though I can't produce as much as you....I should still get as much as you. Bullshit. To a skilled worker a comrade can be as much of a parasite as a capitalist.


Remember people are their own boss under communism, without porperty laws and the power that comes with it, what more than what you need to be comfortable would people want?


The pretext to charity and volunteer labor is that first, it is needed and is considered a good deed, and second, that such work for free does not compromise one's own welfare.

There is NO charity involved, your working for yourself, you need the community, thus you interact and cooperate with others.


Only where free labor is an exception do people feel encouraged to provide it, and do so with ethical incentive. In a world where there was no third world poverty, for instance, there would be no exception and therefore no need for charity. In a world where there is no need for virtuous charitable work, but consisting of unequal workers who base their commodity exchanges on the principle of sharing, the welfare of the greater workers is compromised by inferior workers- those who produce less are eligible to have as much as those who produce more.


How is the walfare of so called "greater workers" (however you define that) compromised? Under communism what you call "yours" is just your stuff, like your home, toothbrush, bed, and so on and so forth (things you don't need property laws for), other stuff that is nessessary would be shared, in work and distribution.

Also peoples satisfactio does'nt come from their "charity" it comes from a job well done and useful, it can be anything from fixing something to gardening.

Your argument is really an argument against democracy, let me restate your argument in political terms. "smart voters are compromised by dumb ones, thus democracy can't work."


Again, there is no difference between being exploited by a capitalist and being subordinate to an inferior worker

heres the difference, with the inferoir worker you and him have equal rights and equal say, with the capitalist, he has more rights and much more say (in fact all of it), you don't. Big difference.

One you have to deal with and cooperate with, the other you have to Obay.


Under any circumstances man will work as little as possible for as much as possible. It is his nature to be efficient- nobody wants to work for the sake of working.

And even in your alternative system, man still isn't working for himself. He is now working for everyone, and this everyone consists of many inferior workers.


First of all, Capitalism (being extreamly inefficiant) makes people work more than nessesary to uphold the massiave wealth of a few, so capitalism is worse in that sense.

second, in my system, man IS'NT working for everyone, however, chances are, if he wants to live a comfortable life, he'll have to cooperate with others.

difference is, he'll have to cooperate with equal rights.


No. While the capitalist exploits the worker, the worker still has the opportunity to express his superior talents by operating in a competitive system where there are different degrees of wages. This means that although his work profits the capitalist, it still does not profit the inferior worker.

The "but you CAN raise above poverty" argument. In the real world, that requires so much risk, luck, and funds (that most people don't have), that its not even a real option, which is why people under Capitalism work as little as they can for a pay check (not as little as they can to get the job done). Class liquidity is such an overplayed semi-myth it should'nt even be an argument.

Also, in real life, Capitalists WILL ALWAYS pay the least amount they can for the work, which means that for the most part it does'nt matter how good you are, the Capitalist will pay as little as he can get away with.


The rest of your post is a waste of my time. When you realize one day that the future of global politics will involve international socialism rather than a collage of single countries and nations morphing in and out of various political systems....you will see that anarchy is yesterdays news.

There IS NO FUCKING WAY ten billion people can coexist in an anarchist society. Fagettabout it, pal.

I think anarchist societies make it much easier to coexist than hiarchal societies, no power, no power struggles, plus people don't need to all "coexist" in the sense that the whole world is holding hands and singing. You only need to cooperate with people to get jobs done, which is better any type of dictatorship (capitalism, the state ect.)

As to the rest of my post being a waste of time ... I have a feeling you only picked the points you could think of responces too, and ignored the "waste of time" points such as.


Why is that the case? Anarchism worked both in Chiapas with some rural indians and in barcelona. The whole city did'nt interact and vote on every single issue, only those directly involved really, so the principles stay the same. Population really does'nt matter, what matters is population density, for example, take Los Angeles, if people in Southern LA are deciding what they should do with a park, chances are it does'n concern people who live in Glendale, they really don't care.

Also for tecnology, why does it require hiarchy? If someone is good at certain technology or industry, you don't think people would allow that person responsibility over it? Any less than a "leader" would?

WHICH IS EMPIRICAL F#@KING EVICENCE, and a pre response to your idiotic post about people not being able to coexist.


Also your saying that is assuming that governments, capialists, and hiarchies in general actually prevent more violence than they cause, which is empirically not the case first of all, second of all logically its not the case, that is if you believe in the statement "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Which I'm assumin you do.

Was that point a waste of time? Well I defy you to show why being ruled over is more beneficial than not being ruled over.


Before you point out how that could'nt work, I'd like to point out probably the only country in the world right now that is doing better economically, Norway, a country where you really don't have to work (yet it has very low unemployment, people still produce, and rather well), where work is very very laid back, and where the profit motive is very much reduced compared to the rest of the world, and where wages for "working class jobs" are very high, and where people have much more of a say over their working conditions (unions are very strong), and the walfare if extreamly generous. Guess what, the country is doing great, living standards are the best in the world.

More empirical evidence, I guess real world examples are a waste of time for philosophers like you with their head up their asses.


What I mean by equal in rights, I mean equal rights over the means of production and resources. Which means if 2 people have interests in a certain resource they must work it out, one person can't just claim rights to it, and violently oppress the other if he does'nt respect those claims.

The same way, here in America (in theory) We have an equal vote, whether or not we use it is a different thing. Its the same concept with communism.

That point too, which I talked about voting. You somehow think having to cooperate with people to get this done is worse exploitation than having to obay someone to eat.


There are workers out there who are inherently worthless. I have no sympathy for this trash, whatsoever. Only in a system where I was able to ascend him, as is my natural right, and where none of my effort went to accommodate his needs/wants at the expense of my own, would I exist with this worm and respect him as I should: as a low ranking worker who must acquire skill and integrity before he has a right to equal share. Instead, the attitude and mentality of this modern consumer/worker is that somehow he has a right to have what everybody else has. Strip away the facade of this dullard, the appearance of "coolness" with his idiom, his dress, his mannerisms, and what you have left is a feeble little worm who struggles to tie his own shoelaces. No, this fuck doesn't "deserve" anything. He is no different than the capitalist when contrasted against me.

Sounds like someones a little bit bitter.

After the revolution you can build your own little house in the mountain away from everyone else, and not have to deal with the "trash".

But I guess you'd rather be told what to do instead of actually dealing with people you consider "trash".

So far none of what you've talked about shows how anarchism is a worse system then hiarchal systems like capitalism and statism.


My goal is to abolish both the capitalist and the decadent proletarian class. Both of them are worms.

We want to abolish a system, it sounds like you want to abolish people, am I right?