So Leftists, what do you really believe? [Archive]

AnthArmo

18th June 2009, 14:37

Oh god, you guys don't have to be such pricks about it.

I don't "Believe" in anything. What I do want on the other hand is Democracy extended to the economy. Workers-self management in shops/factories/offices/mines. Elected and fully recallable worker councils elected from each workplace. The elimination of countries (eventually). Work for need, not the surplus value extracted from workers by capitalists. And the complete and utter overthrow of capitalism.

The end of racism,homophobia and nationalism. And maybe eventually the doing away with religion if society grows out of it.

And no, I don't want a single dictator to centrally plan the economy to benefit a privileged bureaucracy, that's state capitalism.

Spideyv

18th June 2009, 15:21

Ignore the above two - they're restricted for a reason.

Revolutionary leftists can hold either one of the two views you described.

I noticed they were restricted, so I was hoping someone else would respond. Thank you though!

Spideyv

18th June 2009, 15:38

What I do want on the other hand is Democracy extended to the economy. Workers-self management in shops/factories/offices/mines. Elected and fully recallable worker councils elected from each workplace. The elimination of countries (eventually).

Now when you say you want the elimination of countries, do you mean governments? If so, I am right there with you and I think it is a very noble goal!

Work for need, not the surplus value extracted from workers by capitalists.

So what do you think of sole proprietors and partnerships that do not have employees? Do you have anything against them?

And the complete and utter overthrow of capitalism.

So I guess I would have to ask what you think capitalism is? I just think of it as exchange between people, and I definitely would not want people to stop exchanging things!

The end of racism,homophobia and nationalism.

All very lofty goals, and I am right there with you!

And maybe eventually the doing away with religion if society grows out of it.

I think with freedom, this would probably happen.

And no, I don't want a single dictator to centrally plan the economy to benefit a privileged bureaucracy, that's state capitalism.

Excellent! What about a Republic or Democracy then instead to plan the economy?

Jack

18th June 2009, 15:58

So what do you think of sole proprietors and partnerships that do not have employees? Do you have anything against them?

Butting in...

We don't mind them too much, but we don't try to reach out to them because they are petite bourgeois and thus not a revolutionary class.

Spideyv

18th June 2009, 16:52

Butting in...

We don't mind them too much, but we don't try to reach out to them because they are petite bourgeois and thus not a revolutionary class.

So are you in favor of eliminating licensing laws, zoning laws, and regulations so that more of the "workers" can become sole proprietors instead?

Kwisatz Haderach

19th June 2009, 00:33

The vast majority of revolutionary leftists advocate the abolition of the state. However, different groups of revolutionary leftists have different views of what counts as a "state." Therefore, when we say we want to get rid of the state, we may not necessarily mean the same thing as when you say you want to get rid of the state.

So what do you think of sole proprietors and partnerships that do not have employees? Do you have anything against them?
Generally, we are indifferent towards them. We do not advocate that sort of economic organization, but it doesn't go against our principles either (because it does not rely on exploitation). We would not want to pass any laws against them, though some revolutionary leftists advocate economic systems that would make independent firms impossible as a side effect.

For example, many revolutionary leftists (myself included) advocate a kind of currency that can only be used to make purchases from the collective/commune/state and is not transferable between individuals. In other words, you would have something like a debit card that you could use to buy goods, but there would be no way to transfer money from your card to someone else's card. You could still barter with other individuals, of course, and that's fine, but it would be very difficult to run a business on barter.

Qwerty Dvorak

19th June 2009, 02:09

Ignore the above two - they're restricted for a reason.

Perhaps, but I wasn't restricted for that reason (piss-taking/trolling).

Rosa Provokateur

19th June 2009, 02:55

Anarchy. Everything else is the State hidden behind dreams of equality.

Spideyv

19th June 2009, 14:52

For example, many revolutionary leftists (myself included) advocate a kind of currency that can only be used to make purchases from the collective/commune/state and is not transferable between individuals. In other words, you would have something like a debit card that you could use to buy goods, but there would be no way to transfer money from your card to someone else's card. You could still barter with other individuals, of course, and that's fine, but it would be very difficult to run a business on barter.

That seems fascist to me. You want to take away my freedom to use whatever currency I would choose.

Qwerty Dvorak

19th June 2009, 15:00

That seems fascist to me. You want to take away my freedom to use whatever currency I would choose.
Restricting someone's freedom in the interests of others and of society is not fascist (well, not necessarily). Every society in the history of ever has done it in various forms for various reasons. The myth that any form of social order = fascism really has to be put to bed.

eyedrop

19th June 2009, 15:04

That seems fascist to me. You want to take away my freedom to use whatever currency I would choose.

Fascist isn't a wishy washy thing you can attach to anything you like.

JohnnyC

19th June 2009, 15:29

I support socialization of means of production and international rule of workers councils.I guess that most people on this site share this opinion.

Jimmie Higgins

19th June 2009, 16:15

I would like to see worker's democracy where power is based from workplace and communities - I would call this "socialism" because there would be a state, but power in that state would be based on the working class rather than the capitalists as it is now.

I think this is a big misunderstanding people on the right (actually liberals too), specifically libertarians have: the state, in my view, is not separate from society. The state is created to uphold a certain status-quo for a certain group. In Feudalism, the state was designed to maintain a society where people's position was determined by their birth and what caste they were in. This is totally useless and actually harmful for market-based business and so eventually the bourgeois got so powerful that they had to get rid of the old states that were holding them back.

In capitalism, the state is created around the needs of business - trade laws, private property protections and so on. So when the US or UK nationalizes business, this is not socialism in the sense of a workers society (both Stalinists and Right-wingers think that nationalized industry is socialism) but it is nationalization in the interests of capitalism as a whole (even though it may hurt an induvidual firm or industry).

There will be nationalizations under socialism but it will look more like a sit-down strike from the 30s or a factory occupation in Argentina than some beurocrat signing a document and issueing a decree. Ultimately since the working class has no need to exploit other groups of people to create wealth, there will be less need for "state" organizing and I think the parties that represent workers in a worker society might be based on how quickly we can dismantle the state as well as how resources should be distributed.

Spideyv

19th June 2009, 16:42

Restricting someone's freedom in the interests of others and of society is not fascist (well, not necessarily). Every society in the history of ever has done it in various forms for various reasons. The myth that any form of social order = fascism really has to be put to bed.

I am not really sure what else to call it.

Spideyv

19th June 2009, 16:44

Fascist isn't a wishy washy thing you can attach to anything you like.

I don't. I just attach it to restricting my freedom arbitrarily (i.e. when I have not harmed another), which is exactly what he proposes.

Spideyv

19th June 2009, 16:56

eyedrop

19th June 2009, 19:07

I don't. I just attach it to restricting my freedom arbitrarily (i.e. when I have not harmed another), which is exactly what he proposes.

Good luck getting people to accept your version of what fascist is.

Besides that your version of the word encompass practically every action other persons does and is thus meaningless.

Find another word that isn't already used on a very specific and historical tradition.

Kwisatz Haderach

19th June 2009, 19:14

That seems fascist to me. You want to take away my freedom to use whatever currency I would choose.
As others have pointed out, "fascism" is not and cannot be synonymous with any and all forms of control. Not every restriction of freedom is "fascist."

Besides, you are not even correct about this particular restriction. I specifically said you'd still be able to barter with other people. If you can barter, you can also invent your own currency if you wish - cigarettes tend to be an eternal favourite. But whatever currency you invent, will not be accepted in state/collective shops, and will not be backed by the state/collective. There will be no laws restricting you from being self-employed and having a one-man business (as long as you do not hire employees). But I do not believe such a business would be very successful, because you'd have to compete with the state/collective. And whatever you sell, they will probably be able to sell cheaper. Add to that the fact that people will naturally prefer to use the state/collective currency instead of your currency (because the official currency can be used in more places), and you see the problem.

So I guess I would have to ask what you think capitalism is? I just think of it as exchange between people, and I definitely would not want people to stop exchanging things!
We do not have anything against exchange. However, we are opposed to private property over the means of production (some revolutionary leftists are opposed only to private property over the means of production, others are also opposed to all private property, others are somewhere in between).

The means of production are land and capital. In other words, land and any objects whose primary role is to serve in the production of more objects. The standard example of means of production are factories and everything in them. When we say we want to abolish capitalism, we mean that we want these things to become collective property.

Excellent! What about a Republic or Democracy then instead to plan the economy?
Of course. All revolutionary leftists agree that economic planning should be done by democratic institutions. We disagree about the details of those institutions, how they should be elected, how the planning process should take place, and so on.

Generally, anarchists prefer planning by small, local councils, while socialists and communists prefer planning by larger institutions covering country-sized territories. Anarchists argue that small institutions are better because it is easier for the people to control them. Communists argue that large institutions are better because they would be able to take into account the wishes of a large population, while small councils might do things that are good for their local community but bad for everyone else.

Jack

19th June 2009, 19:22

So are you in favor of eliminating licensing laws, zoning laws, and regulations so that more of the "workers" can become sole proprietors instead?

Don't really care, the entire system is shit so I don't care if there's more petite bourgeois, they're irrelavent.

But I love how you try to push your bullshit, why don't you ask a real question relating to your "ideology". What about something like: Do you want to have tolls on all the roads, remove police and fire protection from those who can't afford it, and remove minnimum wage and worker protections?

Nobody wants that.

Jimmie Higgins

19th June 2009, 19:32

I still don't get it.What aspect?

I am just wondering what exactly you Leftists believe? As I understand it, Communism was supposed to be a road to Anarchy, with "temporary" government control until everything was in place. Or do you more believe in Socialism, where the state owns the means of production? In other words, the State employs everyone, with a centrally planned economy?

As I see it, in socialism "the state" does not "own" the means of production, the workers do. They carry out their "ownership" through making the decisions together at workplaces. They would also probably have to elect representatives from each worksite and industry for higher political bodies that would work out distribution; this would be considered "the state". Worker councils in the past generally had instant recall of these representatives and I see that as essential. So in a sense, the worker's state does have influence in production, but it is not the same as Castro, Chavez, or Bush, or Putin nationalizing an industry for the interests of their states.

As far as socialism vs. anarchism: all marxist socialists are "anarchists" in that the end goal of a stateless and classless society is the same.

Misanthrope

19th June 2009, 20:44

I believe that the state is the ultimate evil, followed by capitalism. I believe one should not pledge allegiance to their race, flag, republic, or nation but rather to humans as a whole.

Spideyv

19th June 2009, 21:41

Besides, you are not even correct about this particular restriction. I specifically said you'd still be able to barter with other people. If you can barter, you can also invent your own currency if you wish - cigarettes tend to be an eternal favourite. But whatever currency you invent, will not be accepted in state/collective shops, and will not be backed by the state/collective. There will be no laws restricting you from being self-employed and having a one-man business (as long as you do not hire employees). But I do not believe such a business would be very successful, because you'd have to compete with the state/collective. And whatever you sell, they will probably be able to sell cheaper. Add to that the fact that people will naturally prefer to use the state/collective currency instead of your currency (because the official currency can be used in more places), and you see the problem.

So no, I cannot use whatever currency I want.

We do not have anything against exchange. However, we are opposed to private property over the means of production (some revolutionary leftists are opposed only to private property over the means of production, others are also opposed to all private property, others are somewhere in between).

What is the difference between me milking my cow at home and getting paid for it or me milking another person's cow and getting paid for it?

The means of production are land and capital. In other words, land and any objects whose primary role is to serve in the production of more objects. The standard example of means of production are factories and everything in them. When we say we want to abolish capitalism, we mean that we want these things to become collective property.

So you want land to become collective property?

Of course. All revolutionary leftists agree that economic planning should be done by democratic institutions. We disagree about the details of those institutions, how they should be elected, how the planning process should take place, and so on.

Yeah, it is pretty hard to figure out the best form of government. They all suck so bad.

Generally, anarchists prefer planning by small, local councils,

No, anarchists prefer no planning and no government, unless it is a government with consent of all those that are governed.

while socialists and communists prefer planning by larger institutions covering country-sized territories.

Which can be as small as a few square miles I would assume...

Spideyv

19th June 2009, 22:00

Don't really care, the entire system is shit so I don't care if there's more petite bourgeois, they're irrelavent [sic].

Yeah, people working for themselves really sucks right? It is better for them to work for other people!

But I love how you try to push your bullshit, why don't you ask a real question relating to your "ideology".

Because I already understand my ideology. Kind of stupid to ask myself questions about what I believe. But feel free to ask me anything you want to about my ideology.

What about something like: Do you want to have tolls on all the roads,

I think you mean to ask, "Do you not think that in an anarchist society, there would be tolls on every road?" No, I do not.

remove police and fire protection from those who can't afford it,

I think you mean to ask, "Do you not think there will be those without fire and police services in an anarchist society?" No I do not.

and remove minnimum wage and worker protections?

First of all, in regards to minimum wage, all that does is reduce the number of people that get to work and make money, since there is a limited supply of money. This hurts the poor the most, since the least able to get employment in society now have a harder time.

As to "worker protection" I have no idea what you are referring to.

Nobody wants that.

Of course there is. I am one of them, and there are many other like me.

Spideyv

19th June 2009, 22:01

I believe that the state is the ultimate evil, followed by capitalism. I believe one should not pledge allegiance to their race, flag, republic, or nation but rather to humans as a whole.

Without the state, you have capitalism.

Kwisatz Haderach

19th June 2009, 22:09

So no, I cannot use whatever currency I want.
How so? Who is stopping you? You can use whatever currency you want. But if you can't persuade other people to use it because they prefer trading with the state - well, then you have no one but yourself to blame.

Or do you think competition is unfair?

What is the difference between me milking my cow at home and getting paid for it or me milking another person's cow and getting paid for it?
If you get paid the same amount for both, there is no difference.

But under capitalism, you will get paid less for milking another person's cow than for milking your own cow. That's exploitation, and that is why we oppose capitalism.

So you want land to become collective property?
Yes. No single person made the land, so no single person has a right to own it.

No, anarchists prefer no planning and no government, unless it is a government with consent of all those that are governed.
Which is precisely why anarchists support small, local councils. The territory overseen by each council would be small enough to allow people to easily move to another council's land. Also, many anarchists - specifically, the anarcho-syndicalists - want councils to be based around workplaces, not the land your house is built on.

But since I'm not an anarchist, I'm not the best person to explain these things.

Which can be as small as a few square miles I would assume...
You know what I meant. Something more along the size of France than the size of Monaco.

Kwisatz Haderach

19th June 2009, 22:10

Without the state, you have capitalism.
No. Because without the state, you don't have private property.

Spideyv

19th June 2009, 22:42

How so? Who is stopping you? You can use whatever currency you want. But if you can't persuade other people to use it because they prefer trading with the state - well, then you have no one but yourself to blame.

Or do you think competition is unfair?

Maybe I just do not understand the system you are describing. It sounds to me like if I want to use a different currency, that some people will not be allowed to accept it. I would probably use gold/silver, not cigarettes. Cigarettes are used in prisons because they do not have easy access to cash.

If you get paid the same amount for both, there is no difference.

But under capitalism, you will get paid less for milking another person's cow than for milking your own cow.

You have no way to prove this statement. If I own the cow, then I have to pay for its feed and for the land to house it, plus I have to milk it. If I milk another person's cow, then I do not have those costs to account for. I also do not have to try to sell it.

That's exploitation, and that is why we oppose capitalism.

No it is not.

Yes. No single person made the land, so no single person has a right to own it.

What if I build a house on a piece of land? Or an office building?

Which is precisely why anarchists support small, local councils.

Again, anarchists do not support unrepresentative governments. A representative government would only be a democracy where everyone has full veto power.

The territory overseen by each council would be small enough to allow people to easily move to another council's land. Also, many anarchists - specifically, the anarcho-syndicalists - want councils to be based around workplaces, not the land your house is built on.

No we do not. We do not want councils. Unless those councils have the consent of all those who are governed.

You know what I meant. Something more along the size of France than the size of Monaco.

So you think Monaco should be absorbed by a larger country?

Spideyv

19th June 2009, 22:44

No. Because without the state, you don't have private property.

You can have law without a state. And so you can have private property as well.

Even animals mark their territory...

Jimmie Higgins

19th June 2009, 22:49

Without the state, you have capitalism.

I don't believe you are correct since trade laws, trade disputes, private property, and so on are dependent on a capitalist state, but I am curious to know how your interpretation of history explains the connection between industrialism and modern big states. France, Italy, and Germany (and even the US after the failure of the articles of confederation) all unified under one state in attempts to "modernize" i.e. shake off aristocratic laws and rules, make trade rules uniform, get rid of tariffs and to defend firms militarily from both labor strikes and other national competitors. How is this not int the interests of business? Why would capitalists choose to go from the small capitalism of the early 1800s to the larger capitalism with much greater state involvement?

The Republicans in the US during the civil war were for "Free labor and free trade" and were representing some of the more progressive trends in capitalism (i.e modernizing and getting rid of backwards slave-based labor in the south) and yet they INCREASED the government's size. In the 1870-80s, the capitalists regularly relied on police, state militias, and the military (as well as Pinkerton private security scum) to break unions and kill union leaders.

How is it that capitalists "really want no state" when their entire history suggests that the state is essential for them to overcome feudalism and keep down radical worker movements?

Jimmie Higgins

19th June 2009, 22:54

You can have law without a state. And so you can have private property as well.

Even animals mark their territory... And if you ignore an animals boundaries they will try to kill you. In the end, force is necessary for a ruling class to enforce its will on the rest of society. A contract is fine but what's keeping you to it? Surfs lived on communal land in England - the early capitalist passed enclosure acts but what made people move off the land? Men with guns did. That's the state and that's why all minority ruling classes need a state to enforce their rules.

Kronos

22nd June 2009, 23:51

No. Because without the state, you don't have private property.

Sure you do, except you steal, pillage and plunder to get it. In a state, you abide by laws which are enforced by a judicial system, in order to obtain property.

Oh wait...you must be one of those pipe-dream anarchists? I must admit, you have a very high estimation of man. I more or less share the same feelings as Hobbes, about the human being. A despicable, lying cheating parasite that hates everybody.

It would be a matter of days before the entire world degenerated into a terrible spoof of the movie Escape from New York. Gangs and warlords would fight it out over something as trivial as a sausage and egg biscuit.

I can't believe you people have even a fraction of faith in anarchy. You'd live more comfortably in a concentration camp.

Trystan

22nd June 2009, 23:58

As a socialist, I believe in the total enslavement of humanity. Duh.

Satisfied now?

Trystan

23rd June 2009, 00:05

Oh wait...you must be one of those pipe-dream anarchists? I must admit, you have a very high estimation of man. I more or less share the same feelings as Hobbes, about the human being. A despicable, lying cheating parasite that hates everybody.

That's the kind of misanthropic crap you'd expect a Christian to say.

One question: if people are as bad as you think, then why would you want a government? After all, the government has nuclear weapons, police, military . . . Surely we already have these "gangs"? If people are bastards, then why give them power over millions?

Dimentio

23rd June 2009, 00:09

Bud Struggle

23rd June 2009, 00:35

As a socialist, I believe in the total enslavement of humanity. Duh.

Oh a Trotskyist? :lol:

Forward Union

23rd June 2009, 01:19

I am just wondering what exactly you Leftists believe? As I understand it, Communism was supposed to be a road to Anarchy, with "temporary" government control until everything was in place. Or do you more believe in Socialism, where the state owns the means of production? In other words, the State employs everyone, with a centrally planned economy?

Well to be entirely frank with you, I can see from like experience (and all of human history) that my day to day like, at work and at home is made much better (in terms of shorter working hours, higher pay, healthcare etc) by the existence of strong fighting unions and community and residents associations who fight for the well being of myself, my family and my friends, against the bosses and landlords who make our lives worse. I want direct control of my life, my workplace, and my community.

The best way to end this constant battle for dignity and a humane standard of living, and create security and stability, is to go beyond having big unions, and to simply remove the bosses and landlords and collectively manage things. But this is called a revolution.

From that I conclude I must be a communist. Because I want what is best for me, and I bet when it comes down to it, you do to. I also believe society works best when is local, communal, and directly democratic, governed by everyone involved in it.

Chambered Word

23rd June 2009, 13:39

As a Trotskyist I believe in a true dictatorship of the proletariat through soviets or what have you - I'm kind of a beginner here anyhow. I don't think anarchy is a practically feasible concept.

RGacky3

24th June 2009, 11:57

I don't think anarchy is a practically feasible concept.

This seams to be the number 1 argument against anarchism, the "it does'nt feel right" approach, no reasons why, no actual arguments, just "naww, it can't happen".

Sure you do, except you steal, pillage and plunder to get it.

Thats just possesion, meaning things who hold onto, which is different from private property.

It would be a matter of days before the entire world degenerated into a terrible spoof of the movie Escape from New York. Gangs and warlords would fight it out over something as trivial as a sausage and egg biscuit.

Is that what happend in Anarchist spain? Zapatista Chiapas? the Ukranian free territories?

Oh wait...you must be one of those pipe-dream anarchists? I must admit, you have a very high estimation of man. I more or less share the same feelings as Hobbes, about the human being. A despicable, lying cheating parasite that hates everybody.

Perfect, so thats why we need to put theses parasites into positions of power.

The people with a high estimation of man are the ones that think human rulership over man (through governments and property) would be better than not.

I can't believe you people have even a fraction of faith in anarchy. You'd live more comfortably in a concentration camp.

I can't believe anyone would have a fraction of faith in the State, or the Capitalist class or authority in general. Which being a non anarchist requires.

(waiting in learning forum)

RGacky3

24th June 2009, 11:58

double post.

Nwoye

24th June 2009, 15:21

This seams to be the number 1 argument against anarchism, the "it does'nt feel right" approach, no reasons why, no actual arguments, just "naww, it can't happen".
what? you must be talking to the wrong non-anarchists. first off, how would police, or defense be handled in your anarchic society?

Rosa Provokateur

24th June 2009, 16:38

what? you must be talking to the wrong non-anarchists. first off, how would police, or defense be handled in your anarchic society?

Who needs police. Communities can better protect themselves than can any cop; plus, the existence of police creates alienation and abuse of power.

Jack

24th June 2009, 16:47

what? you must be talking to the wrong non-anarchists. first off, how would police, or defense be handled in your anarchic society?

Why do you have a picture of an anarchist as your avatar, and call yourself a Communist, if you can't answer this question.

Nwoye

24th June 2009, 16:49

Who needs police. Communities can better protect themselves than can any cop; plus, the existence of police creates alienation and abuse of power.
or defense

Nwoye

24th June 2009, 16:51

Why do you have a picture of an anarchist as your avatar, and call yourself a Communist, if you can't answer this question.
i have a picture of a spanish anarcho-syndicalist in my avatar because Catalonia Spain during the spanish civil war was probably the closest real life application of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

i also generally respect anarchists and left-libertarians, and draw a lot on figures like proudhon and bakunin.

Rosa Provokateur

24th June 2009, 17:23

proudhon and bakunin.

Proudhon and Bakunin are dead. We need ideas for today, not ancient 19th century philosophy.

Nwoye

24th June 2009, 17:37

Proudhon and Bakunin are dead. We need ideas for today, not ancient 19th century philosophy.
ideas live forever! didn't you pay attention to V for Vendetta?

Pogue

24th June 2009, 20:09

Proudhon and Bakunin are dead. We need ideas for today, not ancient 19th century philosophy.

Wait, aren't you a Christian?

Rosa Provokateur

24th June 2009, 20:45

Wait, aren't you a Christian?

Yeah and there are alot of old church traditions that should be tossed as well. Trinitarianism, the infallibility of the Bible, etc. There's nothing to show that Jesus was God in human form, the Bible is not perfect, these views and others are keeping people from realizing their potential in the same way that holding on to Proudhon and Bakunin are keeping anarchists stuck in the past.

We need to move past class, move past ideas of equalibrium, and get to the core of it: freedom. Anarchy is all about freedom and I think we've let doctrine, economics, and Leftism get in the way of that. We need to aim for anarchy, not anarchism. Ism's are ideas and as great as ideas can be they'l never be as good as living it, as the life-style of it.

I say we make our own ideas. I say we personalize anarchy, each of us, and make it something worth fighting for again.

Jack

24th June 2009, 21:02

Yeah and there are alot of old church traditions that should be tossed as well. Trinitarianism, the infallibility of the Bible, etc. There's nothing to show that Jesus was God in human form, the Bible is not perfect, these views and others are keeping people from realizing their potential in the same way that holding on to Proudhon and Bakunin are keeping anarchists stuck in the past.

We need to move past class, move past ideas of equalibrium, and get to the core of it: freedom. Anarchy is all about freedom and I think we've let doctrine, economics, and Leftism get in the way of that. We need to aim for anarchy, not anarchism. Ism's are ideas and as great as ideas can be they'l never be as good as living it, as the life-style of it.

I say we make our own ideas. I say we personalize anarchy, each of us, and make it something worth fighting for again.

Don't water it down, kiddo. We don't want your wierd christian primitivism.

Rosa Provokateur

24th June 2009, 21:14

Don't water it down, kiddo. We don't want your wierd christian primitivism.

Beats weird religious fundamentalism :tt2:

I'm not out to do away with the Left or anything it's just that everythings gotten too political (as dumb as that sounds). I remember when I joined the YCL back in 2005; there was energy, and passion, and honest to God struggle.

Now it's just discussion of how to define an ideology or what's reactionary and who is "bourgeois" and what-not.

We need some freakin idealism, guys. We need action. I dont mean just going and meeting the BNP or NSM face-to-face but actually going out and building networks of community, starting our own projects, putting our fervor in action and formulating our own ideas as we do it. Whether it's primitivist, marxist, anarcho-capitalist, libertarian or whatever.

We'll create a better world by living it.

Kronos

24th June 2009, 23:39

if people are as bad as you think, then why would you want a government? After all, the government has nuclear weapons, police, military . . . Surely we already have these "gangs"? If people are bastards, then why give them power over millions?

If you want to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs.

Without a pure authoritarian state....mankind will never become an omelette.

I am a fascist dictator, by the way. A cold, heartless bastard who would execute millions in the blink of an eye. This planet is like an experiment to me. I want to make an empire out of it.

Now are you in or not?

Ele'ill

25th June 2009, 00:00

Beats weird religious fundamentalism :tt2:

I'm not out to do away with the Left or anything it's just that everythings gotten too political (as dumb as that sounds). I remember when I joined the YCL back in 2005; there was energy, and passion, and honest to God struggle.

Now it's just discussion of how to define an ideology or what's reactionary and who is "bourgeois" and what-not.

We need some freakin idealism, guys. We need action. I dont mean just going and meeting the BNP or NSM face-to-face but actually going out and building networks of community, starting our own projects, putting our fervor in action and formulating our own ideas as we do it. Whether it's primitivist, marxist, anarcho-capitalist, libertarian or whatever.

We'll create a better world by living it.

:thumbup:

Rosa Provokateur

25th June 2009, 08:08

If you want to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs.

Without a pure authoritarian state....mankind will never become an omelette.

I am a fascist dictator, by the way. A cold, heartless bastard who would execute millions in the blink of an eye. This planet is like an experiment to me. I want to make an empire out of it.

Now are you in or not?

Depends, if I help do I get the Jonas Brothers :drool:

RGacky3

25th June 2009, 08:21

what? you must be talking to the wrong non-anarchists. first off, how would police, or defense be handled in your anarchic society?

in MY anarchic society???

By definition you can't have someones anarchic society, and how defense would be handled might be different in different areas. But I don't see how defense / policing can't be done collectively by consensus.

Why would you need some type of innate non directly accountable authority to have a defended society?

TomK, Kronos and others have used the "It just does'nt feel right" line many times.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Apostle http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1475309#post1475309)
Proudhon and Bakunin are dead. We need ideas for today, not ancient 19th century philosophy.
Wait, aren't you a Christian?

OHHHH SONOVA*****

the Bible is not perfect

I don't want to turn this into a theological debate, but is'nt that the whole basis of judeo-christian religion? That the bible is gods word and thus perfect, if its not then theres no point being a christian.

We need to move past class, move past ideas of equalibrium, and get to the core of it: freedom. Anarchy is all about freedom and I think we've let doctrine, economics, and Leftism get in the way of that. We need to aim for anarchy, not anarchism. Ism's are ideas and as great as ideas can be they'l never be as good as living it, as the life-style of it.

You don't know how stupid that statement is.

Let me put it in different terms.

A knight tells serfs "just move past this noble/serf stuff, and live your life."

You sound like TomK here, talking into the clouds compleatly ignoring the real situation in life, YOU CANNOT just live your life freely when you have few in control and the rest with no control slaving for survival.

We need some freakin idealism, guys. We need action. I dont mean just going and meeting the BNP or NSM face-to-face but actually going out and building networks of community, starting our own projects, putting our fervor in action and formulating our own ideas as we do it. Whether it's primitivist, marxist, anarcho-capitalist, libertarian or whatever.

People do that.

But starry eyed, head in the clouds "its my life" additude is'nt what liberates people.

If you want to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs.

Without a pure authoritarian state....mankind will never become an omelette.

I am a fascist dictator, by the way. A cold, heartless bastard who would execute millions in the blink of an eye. This planet is like an experiment to me. I want to make an empire out of it.

Now are you in or not?

Lay off the computer games for a while.

Rosa Provokateur

25th June 2009, 10:09

I don't want to turn this into a theological debate, but is'nt that the whole basis of judeo-christian religion? That the bible is gods word and thus perfect, if its not then theres no point being a christian.

You don't know how stupid that statement is.

Let me put it in different terms.

A knight tells serfs "just move past this noble/serf stuff, and live your life."

You sound like TomK here, talking into the clouds compleatly ignoring the real situation in life, YOU CANNOT just live your life freely when you have few in control and the rest with no control slaving for survival.

People do that.

But starry eyed, head in the clouds "its my life" additude is'nt what liberates people.

God's word can be found in it but it was written by men and should be taken seriously, not literally. This means a critical eye now and then and always keeping context, time, place, and language in mind.

Well if there's no power you've got no control to worry about. Have a revolt by all means but dont limit it to just being about class; let's make it a human thing, not a proletariat thing.

It liberates them mentally and only then can they push physically. My idealism aims to exemplify aspects of an anarchist society here and now; people see and they ask, I explain and give them literature, and I sometimes end up networking with that person. Propaganda of deed as "traditional" anarchists would call it.

Chambered Word

25th June 2009, 10:21

Lay off the computer games for a while.

Truth right there. :laugh:

This seams to be the number 1 argument against anarchism, the "it does'nt feel right" approach, no reasons why, no actual arguments, just "naww, it can't happen".

I've actually thought it through. You'd be very hard pressed to stop people from gathering together into factions, let alone creating anarchy sucessfully in the first place without another even worse government rising to power sooner or later.

That's my argument in short.

RGacky3

25th June 2009, 10:28

You'd be very hard pressed to stop people from gathering together into factions, let alone creating anarchy sucessfully in the first place without another even worse government rising to power sooner or later.

Well never happend or started to happen in any of the past examples of anarchism.

Factions gather of people trying to gain power, that only happens when there is an institution of power to gain.

If there is no institution or legal way for a government to raise to power, its gonna be extreamly hard to. Pretty much akin to going to a park and convincing everyone at the park that you should control everything in the park.

Ele'ill

27th June 2009, 00:52

Well never happend or started to happen in any of the past examples of anarchism.

Let's go down this road.

Factions gather of people trying to gain power, that only happens when there is an institution of power to gain.

A gathering of people can and will create an 'instiution of power' and force it onto the rest of the population.

If there is no institution or legal way for a government to raise to power, its gonna be extreamly hard to.

Which is why we live in a world devoid of governments right now. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Pretty much akin to going to a park and convincing everyone at the park that you should control everything in the park.

Which is basically what the anarchists are going to do to over throw the current government. Right?

Oh, wait - Maybe guns and violence are involved...

RGacky3

29th June 2009, 08:09

Let's go down this road.

Ok then, pay attention.

A gathering of people can and will create an 'instiution of power' and force it onto the rest of the population

Ok, I'm sorry, HAS THIS EVER HAPPEND IN PAST ANARCHIST SOCIETIES??

If not, shut the hell up.

if so, when, where, who and how.

Which is why we live in a world devoid of governments right now.

umm, no, there ARE institutions and legal ways to gain power in the world today ....

Which is basically what the anarchists are going to do to over throw the current government. Right?

Oh, wait - Maybe guns and violence are involved...

Convincing people they should NOT submit to power and they SHOULD overthrow it, is a lot easier than convincing people to give up their independance and submit to power.

Mari3l, why are you here, you clearly don't believe in revolution at all.

Have a revolt by all means but dont limit it to just being about class; let's make it a human thing, not a proletariat thing.

Care to explain what your talking about? A Human thing?

It liberates them mentally and only then can they push physically.

Save it for yoga class.

Ele'ill

29th June 2009, 15:57

Ok then, pay attention.

:)

Ok, I'm sorry, HAS THIS EVER HAPPEND IN PAST ANARCHIST SOCIETIES??

It has happened with just about every major grouping of people anywhere right now on this planet ever. I've seen it at work, in the doctor's office, In college and school when I was younger with any Coup, new government, revolution, revolt etc on and on.

A more important question to ask is- Why would anarchism be any different?

As an anarchist- The reason you feel like you're fighting the world is because you are.

The final and most truthful and to the point answer is my last one here:

-There hasn't been any anarchist societies that have lasted long enough for this to occur :laugh: :lol:

umm, no, there ARE institutions and legal ways to gain power in the world today ....

Your original quote was this:

Factions gather of people trying to gain power, that only happens when there is an institution of power to gain.

I may not understand what you're trying to say so forgive me in advance.

Sure there are institutions and legal ways to gain power today but they are not the only way or the easiest way.

If a group of people want power they'll get it- they'll manufacture it- they'll force it- they'll use violence and blackmail to get it etc etc etc...

They will create a system of leverage for themselves.

Convincing people they should NOT submit to power and they SHOULD overthrow it, is a lot easier than convincing people to give up their independance and submit to power.

This is not a reply to what I posted.

I will however respond.

People are afraid that if they were to revolt and no longer submit, that the independence they do currently have will be lost forever.

They have just enough now that they don't want to meddle with a notion of 'more freedom'.

Mari3l, why are you here, you clearly don't believe in revolution at all.

I don't believe that people's idea of revolution is competent. I do believe that it is possible just not in the manner you're all stating.

I am here to question others on the left to see how I can improve things.

Nothing ever gets accomplished when everyone sits in a room and agrees.

Challenge.

Care to explain what your talking about? A Human thing?

I agree with them. The evil of capitalism has very little to do with labor and the worker's movement.

It is about spiritual liberation.

RGacky3

30th June 2009, 09:19

A more important question to ask is- Why would anarchism be any different?

As an anarchist- The reason you feel like you're fighting the world is because you are.

Fighting the world?

Anarchism would be different because its the only type of society where the main goal is absolute freedom and that would include stopping any type of institution of power (which has to be formalized to be of any significance).

The final and most truthful and to the point answer is my last one here:

-There hasn't been any anarchist societies that have lasted long enough for this to occur

The Zapatista territories have been around fo well over 15 years, you'd think it would happen by now right?

I may not understand what you're trying to say so forgive me in advance.

Sure there are institutions and legal ways to gain power today but they are not the only way or the easiest way.

If a group of people want power they'll get it- they'll manufacture it- they'll force it- they'll use violence and blackmail to get it etc etc etc...

They will create a system of leverage for themselves.

Institutional power (property and the state) are the most powerful srouces of authority, not casual blackmail and thuggary. To get serious power over society you need property, or you need state power.

Un institutional power (maybe mafias or whatever) are harder to maintain under anarchism because there is no central authoritarian monopoly on violence, when the community defends itself, its a lot harder to victimise the community.

Sure someone can blackmail his buddy or whatever but thats power barely worth discussing, we are talking about societies here.

This is not a reply to what I posted.

you posted

Which is basically what the anarchists are going to do to over throw the current government. Right?

Oh, wait - Maybe guns and violence are involved...

which was a response to me saying that for someone to gain authority in an anarchist society, they would need to actually convince the people to voluntarily GIVE them that authority, just because they know better, without any institutions, which is like going to a park and convincing people that its your park, just because.

responce was that is what anarchists are goi ngto do.

I said ... yes, convince people, which is easier to do when your message is to take away peoples power rather than give it to them.

And guns arne violence are only involved if the powers that be choose to enforce their power.

I don't believe that people's idea of revolution is competent. I do believe that it is possible just not in the manner you're all stating.

I see, everyone should just live outside society and grow dreadlocks. Your not a revolutionary.

I am here to question others on the left to see how I can improve things.

Nothing ever gets accomplished when everyone sits in a room and agrees.

Challenge.

Fine, but your still not a revolutionary, everyone becomming a hippy is not a solution.

I agree with them. The evil of capitalism has very little to do with labor and the worker's movement.

It is about spiritual liberation.

You don't get evicted, fired, exploited, work 10 hour days for barely livable wages, oppressed and so on because of spiritual oppression. 5% of the world arn't more spiritually rich than 95% of the world. Its physical, people starve because they don't have food. People die of curable sickness because they don't have medacine.

The evil of capitalism IS NOT spiritual. Spiritual liberation does'nt feed a family, clothe them, cure them, or give them shelter.

This is the greatest crock of shit I've heard, seriously, may I suggest yoga class and leave revolution to the revolutionaries.

Ele'ill

30th June 2009, 20:18

Fighting the world?

Anarchism would be different because its the only type of society where the main goal is absolute freedom and that would include stopping any type of institution of power (which has to be formalized to be of any significance).

And by stopping an attempt at an institution of power you are essentially creating one.

The Zapatista territories have been around fo well over 15 years, you'd think it would happen by now right?

The Zapatista territories are remote. I know some people that squat some buildings down by the Mighty Mississippi too. In a swamp. Hiding and being an anarchist isn't enough.

Institutional power (property and the state) are the most powerful srouces of authority, not casual blackmail and thuggary. To get serious power over society you need property, or you need state power.

Or enough weapons and ammunition.

Fuck. If you instill enough fear you will have the same power.

Un institutional power (maybe mafias or whatever) are harder to maintain under anarchism because there is no central authoritarian monopoly on violence, when the community defends itself, its a lot harder to victimise the community.

You'd be contending against people that don't want anarchism and want a government, violent mafia types, fascists, militant anarchists that don't want to listen to the community and whoever else decides to have some thrills.
Add guns and it gets really fun.

I see, everyone should just live outside society and grow dreadlocks. Your not a revolutionary.

To be honest with you RGacky3, I have met a lot of people living off the grid that have done more for worker solidarity, the environment, and anarchism than most of the people on this board combined.

Good thing I don't have dreadlocks.

Fine, but your still not a revolutionary, everyone becomming a hippy is not a solution.

You labeling certain people as a hippy and then labeling hippy as a negative thing is a waste of everyone's time. Worry about what people have done not what they look like.

Nobody is a revolutionary. There is no revolution.

5% of the world arn't more spiritually rich than 95% of the world.

I'll cut your rant off there.

Spiritual is mouthfeel when you're thirsty not hungry.

RGacky3

1st July 2009, 10:27

And by stopping an attempt at an institution of power you are essentially creating one.

This was talked about in a different post, all your doing is making it a matter of language, forcing people to not force people, is not the same as forcing people to do stuff.

The Zapatista territories are remote. I know some people that squat some buildings down by the Mighty Mississippi too. In a swamp. Hiding and being an anarchist isn't enough.

Well, its a very large territory that produces coffee that the government DOES care about (and fought over), and its their home, they arn't hiding they live there. Its a little bit chauvinistic to compare Zapatistas living in their home to squatters living in a swamp and hiding.

Or enough weapons and ammunition.

Fuck. If you instill enough fear you will have the same power.

Not if the communit yalso has weapons and ammunition.

Sure its POSSIBLE, but much less likely, and its possiblity does'nt justify a system where its inevitable.

You'd be contending against people that don't want anarchism and want a government, violent mafia types, fascists, militant anarchists that don't want to listen to the community and whoever else decides to have some thrills.
Add guns and it gets really fun.

If you don't want to listen to the community they dont have too, also the community does'nt have to listen to you, thats anarchism.

To be honest with you RGacky3, I have met a lot of people living off the grid that have done more for worker solidarity, the environment, and anarchism than most of the people on this board combined.

Good thing I don't have dreadlocks.

good for them, I think thats great. but thier living off the grid has nothing to do with it.

You labeling certain people as a hippy and then labeling hippy as a negative thing is a waste of everyone's time. Worry about what people have done not what they look like.

Nobody is a revolutionary. There is no revolution.

There are many ltitle revolutions. I don't care what people look like, but everyone living off the grid is not the solution.

I'll cut your rant off there.

Spiritual is mouthfeel when you're thirsty not hungry.

you takling about spirits? They just make you more thirsty. Dehydration.

The Red

1st July 2009, 10:37

Personally I believe that the idea of a western revolution is simply stupid. The thought that spontaneously hundreds of thousands will rise up is just absurd.

I think in Europe the train for traditional communism is through. In the US there never was one.
I could exspect a demopcratically voted
Eurocommunism/ democratic Socialist hitchhiking the Social Democrats into power government wave like the one currently in South America.
But there would be problems with openly calling their countries "communist" this way.

For a radical left uprising/revolution in Europe or USA, Anarchism or a similar grassroots movement would be more likely (but not much too).
Lets say they call it libertarian communism, A Greece Revolution ignites the wave in Italy, Spain and France. For the rest of europe this is problematic.
For the USA I could exspect some diluted anarchism like green-primitivist one or the so-calles "Anarcho-Capitalism" to spread ... but those would not be successful.

I could see traditional Communism making a comeback in Asia (China and India for example) too. In Nepal it already has. Perhaps followed by a kind of "communist enlightment" and a anti-authoritarian wave too.

RGacky3

1st July 2009, 10:45

Revolution is'nt JUST hundreds of thousands of people rising up with red flags and guns.

In my opinion, a wild cat strike is more revolutionary than voting in a socialist party president.

The Red

1st July 2009, 10:51

Revolution is'nt JUST hundreds of thousands of people rising up with red flags and guns.

Well it basically is if you look it up in the dictionary.

In my opinion, a wild cat strike is more revolutionary than voting in a socialist party president.

Maybe but its also absurd and stupid. Fear is not and never should be a socialist weapon and disruption like this is only to promote fear.

RGacky3

1st July 2009, 10:53

Well it basically is if you look it up in the dictionary.

Well then I'll try think up of a different word for it :P

Maybe but its also absurd. Fear is not and never should be a socialist weapon.

Fear? Do you know what a wild cat strike is?

RedAnarchist

1st July 2009, 10:58

Fear? Do you know what a wild cat strike is?

Most people aren't going to fear wildcat strikes, just the bosses.

The Red

1st July 2009, 10:59

Fear? Do you know what a wild cat strike is?

Yes I do and I know that a spontaneous strike not only loses the Unions integrity but also cuts of services to many people without forewarning. Is that helping out our fellow man? Its a violent Fascist tactic.

The Red

1st July 2009, 11:01

Most people aren't going to fear wildcat strikes, just the bosses.

So your saying you dont care if your water suddenly turns off or your electricity is out for several days.

Its greed and selfishness and not in the best interest of the people.

RedAnarchist

1st July 2009, 11:02

So your saying you dont care if your water suddenly turns off or your electricity is out for several days.

Its greed and selfishness and not in the best interest of the people.

When does that happen?

The Red

1st July 2009, 11:09

When does that happen?

When you arent given time to prepare for the strike.

Now don't get me wrong I'm all in faour of strikes and I'm proud of my grandfather who fought in the Miners strike but Wild Cat strikes are illegal for good reason: They undermine the Union and fear is their main weapon not protest.

Invariance

1st July 2009, 11:10

Yes I do and I know that a spontaneous strike not only loses the Unions integrity but also cuts of services to many people without forewarning. Is that helping out our fellow man? Its a violent Fascist tactic. Wildcats occur typically because the union has already lost its integrity; its not seen as a body which can deliver the demands of the worker or represent them adequately - which is why wildcats occur by definition. The people who most often resort to the 'cuts of services' argument are anti-worker and pro-capitalist and use it as an excuse to crush and demonize strikers. All communists should support striking workers. Yes, missing out on your bus is a nuisance, but we are talking about someone's wage here - their livelihood - so you should be at least considerate enough to understand that and not be so selfish to think that, what is typically, a minor nuisance is more important than a person's income. And its not workers who have caused that, but capitalists who would rather keep their profits high than increasing workers' wages to a livable standard.

And no, its not a 'violent fascist tactic' - although often the tactics used to break strikes are (assassinating strikers, beating up strikers, threatening their families, fining them ridiculous amounts etc).

The Red

1st July 2009, 11:19

Wildcats occur typically because the union has already lost its integrity; its not seen as a body which can deliver the demands of the worker or represent them adequately - which is why wildcats occur by definition.

Yes but the guy was advocating them as a revolutionary tool without motive.

The people who most often resort to the 'cuts of services' argument are anti-worker and pro-capitalist and use it as an excuse to crush and demonize strikers. All communists should support striking workers. Yes, missing out on your bus is a nuisance, but we are talking about someone's wage here - their livelihood - so you should be at least considerate enough to understand that and not be so selfish to think that, what is typically, a minor nuisance is more important than a person's income. And its not workers who have caused that, but capitalists who would rather keep their profits high than increasing workers' wages to a livable standard.

I agree and I support a lot of strikes but in my mind theres a legal process to these things for a reason and any wildcat action hardly ever actually makes things better but merely aids the bosses by undermining the Union.

And I'm a Socialist. ;)

And no, its not a 'violent fascist tactic' - although often the tactics used to break strikes are (assassinating strikers, beating up strikers, threatening their families, fining them ridiculous amounts etc).

Tit for Tat?

Two wrongs don't make a right I'm afraid.

Invariance

1st July 2009, 11:41

Yes but the guy was advocating them as a revolutionary tool without motive. They have a motive - to defend and advance living standards. Historically speaking, wide-spread strikes have been a fundamental weapon in revolution.

I agree and I support a lot of strikes but in my mind theres a legal process to these things for a reason and any wildcat action hardly ever actually makes things better but merely aids the bosses by undermining the Union.Seriously, do you even know what a wildcat strike is? A wildcat strike is one without the authorization of their respective trade union (if indeed they have a trade union at all). Trade Unions cannot typically held accountable for such strike action because they have not authorized it - which is why individual workers are fined (often tens of thousands of dollars).

You say that it would undermine the union, well guess what - unions often undermine workers and when that happens wildcat strikes occur, and it should be the stance of communists to support them in that struggle - not think that unions have some sort of inherent goodness, infallibility or immunity from bourgeoisie influences. They don't.

And I'm a Socialist. ;)And so is the Pope.

When someone says that 'personally I believe that the idea of a western revolution is simply stupid' I have my doubts about their claims to be a socialist - especially when you attack striking workers (and appeal to 'legal process').

Tit for Tat?

Two wrongs don't make a right I'm afraid. Quoting cliches doesn't make an argument, I'm afraid.

RGacky3

1st July 2009, 11:41

Yes but the guy was advocating them as a revolutionary tool without motive.

when did I say without motive?

I agree and I support a lot of strikes but in my mind theres a legal process to these things for a reason and any wildcat action hardly ever actually makes things better but merely aids the bosses by undermining the Union.

And I'm a Socialist.

The law is not on the side of the workers.

Most people aren't going to fear wildcat strikes, just the bosses.

Bosses fear wildcat strikes more than anything else.

Yes I do and I know that a spontaneous strike not only loses the Unions integrity but also cuts of services to many people without forewarning. Is that helping out our fellow man? Its a violent Fascist tactic.

The workers arn't there for the union, its the otherway around. A union is an organization of workers to coordinate direct action and use solidarity, its not the boss of the workers.

Like was said before, if a wild cat strike is nessesary, chances are your not dealing with a true democratic union.

The Red

1st July 2009, 12:46

And so is the Pope.

When someone says that 'personally I believe that the idea of a western revolution is simply stupid' I have my doubts about their claims to be a socialist - especially when you attack striking workers (and appeal to 'legal process').

I'm a Socialist and also a realist. And I gave my theory of how Socialism will take over eentually but we need to remember that Democracy is the true dictatorship of the proletariat.

eyedrop

1st July 2009, 14:22

I'm a Socialist and also a realist. And I gave my theory of how Socialism will take over eentually but we need to remember that Democracy is the true dictatorship of the proletariat.

Yes democracy is the true "dictatorship of the proletariat", but not the warped version of democracy we have now. Check out the rich history of leftwing parties turning right as they gain power in parlament. They are not free to do as they wish once they are in power.

The Red

1st July 2009, 14:54

Yes democracy is the true "dictatorship of the proletariat", but not the warped version of democracy we have now. Check out the rich history of leftwing parties turning right as they gain power in parlament. They are not free to do as they wish once they are in power.

But thats the beauty of democracy. If they change their views we can always vote them out.

RGacky3

1st July 2009, 15:32

But thats the beauty of democracy. If they change their views we can always vote them out.

Really, because the electorate are the most powerfull entity in a Capitalist nation right? Not the Capitalists (i.e. the people that run the countries economies, and essencially own it).

The Red

1st July 2009, 15:38

Really, because the electorate are the most powerfull entity in a Capitalist nation right? Not the Capitalists (i.e. the people that run the countries economies, and essencially own it).

No the electorate is the most powerful entity in a democratic nation,if they choose capitalism then thats their blunder but the system will still be controlled by the proletariat and not a dictator to only claims to represent them.

revolution inaction

1st July 2009, 16:33

No the electorate is the most powerful entity in a democratic nation,if they choose capitalism then thats their blunder but the system will still be controlled by the proletariat and not a dictator to only claims to represent them.

You know what happens when a vaguely "socialise" party is elected? either there is a coup or they brake what ever promises they made and repress all the real revolutionaries.

The Red

1st July 2009, 16:46

You know what happens when a vaguely "socialise" party is elected? either there is a coup or they brake what ever promises they made and repress all the real revolutionaries.

I'm afraid thats human nature you'll find with a few notable exceptions that whenever theres a Socialist revolution they also betray their principles e.g Soviet Union,China,North Korea.

However Socialist democracies have been much more successful over the years like the Attlee government in Post war Britain. Also with democracy it gives you a chance to get rid of anyone who goes back on their word.

Pogue

1st July 2009, 17:26

Ele'ill

1st July 2009, 22:05

This was talked about in a different post, all your doing is making it a matter of language, forcing people to not force people, is not the same as forcing people to do stuff.

Stopping a group of people from doing something is control.

A matter of language? :lol:

Well, its a very large territory that produces coffee that the government DOES care about (and fought over), and its their home, they arn't hiding they live there. Its a little bit chauvinistic to compare Zapatistas living in their home to squatters living in a swamp and hiding.

Out of sight, out of mind.

Not if the communit yalso has weapons and ammunition.

Ah- So the aim is to control people. With guns no less. :lol:

If you don't want to listen to the community they dont have too, also the community does'nt have to listen to you, thats anarchism.

The community will listen to them if they threaten the community with deaths. If they are a much larger force (and we know from history that anarchist communities can't handle large forces) it will be easy to sway the community into supporting whatever it may be that they support.

This is theoretically assuming that anarchists can ever convince enough of a population that anarchism is the way to go.

good for them, I think thats great. but thier living off the grid has nothing to do with it.

They've made more of a sacrifice than you. They were true to their beliefs.

There are many ltitle revolutions. I don't care what people look like, but everyone living off the grid is not the solution.

Yeah it is. If everyone living off the grid still contributed to a resistance movement you'd have people active in the communities living off the grid.

Rather than people breaking the grid down while building the grid up. :lol:

No, seriously- Those little revolutions are things like not supporting the policies of a company by not giving them money.

Why reward someone's services when you disagree with how the services are run?

RGacky3

2nd July 2009, 09:33

Stopping a group of people from doing something is control.

A matter of language? :lol:

maybe a matter of language is'nt a good way of putting it, a better way is retarded.

IF you stop people from keeping slaves by force are you controlling them?
How about stopping rapists from raping, are you oppressing the rapist?

Its the same thing, now stop being rediculous.

Out of sight, out of mind.

Yeah, great responce, which is why the Mexican government waged war on them, coffee is big business. Anyway, if you don't know what your talking about on a subject, look it up, or don't talk about it.

Ah- So the aim is to control people. With guns no less.

Stopping people from controlling people is'nt controling people, its self defence.

If I stop someone from punching me in the face, I'm not oppressing that person.

(and we know from history that anarchist communities can't handle large forces)

No communities can handle large forces (larger and more powerful than them), its nothing specific to anarchist ones.

The community will listen to them if they threaten the community with deaths. If they are a much larger force

If they ar ea much larger force, but thats with anything, not unique to anarchism.

They've made more of a sacrifice than you. They were true to their beliefs.

They made more pointless sacrifice, yes.

Yeah it is. If everyone living off the grid still contributed to a resistance movement you'd have people active in the communities living off the grid.

Rather than people breaking the grid down while building the grid up.

The grid is'nt the bad part, itts who controls it.

No the electorate is the most powerful entity in a democratic nation,if they choose capitalism then thats their blunder but the system will still be controlled by the proletariat and not a dictator to only claims to represent them.

The electorate can vote in whatever leader they want, they cannot vote in who controls the means of production, THAT is the real power (because its the means of production).

I'm afraid thats human nature you'll find with a few notable exceptions that whenever theres a Socialist revolution they also betray their principles e.g Soviet Union,China,North Korea.

Military coups against leftist governmetns are human nature?

No its protecting property, the same with breaking promises, they realize that they can't do shit without the Capitalists concent.

The other examples are examples of the ruling class being switched with another ruling class.

Old Man Diogenes

2nd July 2009, 09:43

I can't believe you people have even a fraction of faith in anarchy. You'd live more comfortably in a concentration camp.

They'll probably be your concentration camps.

Old Man Diogenes

2nd July 2009, 09:50

Wait, aren't you a Christian?

That was some gold encrusted ownage my friend.

Old Man Diogenes

2nd July 2009, 09:50

Why is it that OIers just get filled with such fucking stupid shit which means nothing. You have no where enar enoguh knowledge or maturity to make such sweeping criticisms as if you have some answer that we should all implement, your a fucking right wing Christian nut job, sort your own ideas out first before telling us whats wrong with ours.

To be fair, though he or she probably is a "fucking right wing Christian nut job" to give he or she his or her dues, the idea about "actually going out and building networks of community, starting our own projects, putting our fervor in action and formulating our own ideas as we do it." is a good idea, people on both the Left and the Right complain that we debate about petty ideological differences a lot more than we put our ideologies into action, I'm not saying I do, I'm saying that most of the Left don't.

More Fire for the People

2nd July 2009, 09:54

I believe good sex and bad drugs are the keys to a great society.

RGacky3

2nd July 2009, 10:09

I believe good sex and bad drugs are the keys to a great society.

France?

Rosa Provokateur

2nd July 2009, 11:46

I believe good sex and bad drugs are the keys to a great society.

Comic genius, laughed my as off when I read it:D

Rosa Provokateur

2nd July 2009, 11:49

Why is it that OIers just get filled with such fucking stupid shit which means nothing. You have no where enar enoguh knowledge or maturity to make such sweeping criticisms as if you have some answer that we should all implement, your a fucking right wing Christian nut job, sort your own ideas out first before telling us whats wrong with ours.

I dont claim to have answers, too many people do that already.

Right wing, no. Christian, yes. Nut job, I only do those for my boyfriend ;)

My ideas are in constant flux save for the fudamentals of pacifism, theism, and anarchy. The real danger is to have your ideas permanantly set in stone. You gotta stay fluid.

ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo

2nd July 2009, 11:49

What do I believe? I think Nihilists should be beaten everyday at random hours. If they decide to return to being human, we'll stop beating them. :D;)

RGacky3

2nd July 2009, 11:53

Nut job, I only do those for my boyfriend

We get it, your gay.

I dont claim to have answers, too many people do that already.

Yes you do, everyone with opinions does.

Rosa Provokateur

2nd July 2009, 11:53

What do I believe? I think Nihilists should be beaten everyday at random hours. If they decide to return to being human, we'll stop beating them. :D;)

At least 10% of anarchism requires nihilism

Rosa Provokateur

2nd July 2009, 11:56

We get it, your gay.

Yes you do, everyone with opinions does.

Sense of humor, loosen up :tt2:

Touche, only difference is I have no intention of organizing and implimenting it. Impliment maybe but only for myself.

ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo

2nd July 2009, 12:03

At least 10% of anarchism requires nihilism

Yeah well my ass requires a certain amount of solid waste to pass through it or else I get toxic. It don't mean I stand around smelling my fingers to keep that shit around.

Okay, that was a bad joke. But Anarchism doesn't require people to succumb to Nihilism, you can totally enjoy values and have faith in morality with a desire for freedom.

Ele'ill

2nd July 2009, 22:52

maybe a matter of language is'nt a good way of putting it, a better way is retarded.

Oh thanks that's a lot better.

IF you stop people from keeping slaves by force are you controlling them? How about stopping rapists from raping, are you oppressing the rapist?

We're not talking about either.

Perhaps- in the most mildest of scenarios- we're talking about someone who hated what capitalism had become but wants to give it another shot.

Yeah, great responce, which is why the Mexican government waged war on them, coffee is big business. Anyway, if you don't know what your talking about on a subject, look it up, or don't talk about it.

I am very familure with the subject.

Out of sight- Out of mind.

The Mexican government waged battles and did so to test the water. A war would have been over quickly.

Stopping people from controlling people is'nt controling people, its self defence.

:lol:
So then the capitalist militarized state has every right to stop anarchists.

If I stop someone from punching me in the face, I'm not oppressing that person.

Horrible example.

No communities can handle large forces (larger and more powerful than them), its nothing specific to anarchist ones.

Don't make yourself a target. There are successful societies here on this planet. They obviously started small. How did they get to where they are now? How did their tactics differ from the anarchist community's?

If they ar ea much larger force, but thats with anything, not unique to anarchism.

Thanks. (sort of) - Anarchism isn't unique from other communities.

Learn and grow.

They made more pointless sacrifice, yes.

You're supporting the top worker's rights violators in the world by giving them money to essentially advertise the brand. The money you gave them goes into pocket and goes into fueling their harmful policies. What does the brand stand for? That company's policies.

I can't believe I'm having this conversation.

You're few and far between, RGacky3.

The grid is'nt the bad part, itts who controls it.

If ever there were a time and place for facepalm.gif

Its who supports those that control it and you are one of them.

More Fire for the People

2nd July 2009, 23:46

France?
Dragnet.

RGacky3

3rd July 2009, 09:31

Perhaps- in the most mildest of scenarios- we're talking about someone who hated what capitalism had become but wants to give it another shot.

How many people do you see around that want to give monarchy, or fuedalism another shot? How many people around do you think would actually prefer to be an employee rather than his own boss?

The Mexican government waged battles and did so to test the water. A war would have been over quickly.

Yeah, had not the Zapatistas done an Amazing PR campain and had the support of much of the countries poor.

So then the capitalist militarized state has every right to stop anarchists.

No, because they are stopping people who are trying to take away their power ... What are you talking about?

They ARE controlling people.

Horrible example.

No because thats exactly what we are talking about.

Don't make yourself a target. There are successful societies here on this planet. They obviously started small. How did they get to where they are now? How did their tactics differ from the anarchist community's?

They wern't attacked by a much larger force ...

Thanks. (sort of) - Anarchism isn't unique from other communities.

Learn and grow.

In the sense that its free and equal yes it is.

Its who supports those that control it and you are one of them.

Actually I'm not really one of them, I can't afford to be :P. But I know I can hurt them much more doing other things rather than just being a hippy vagabond.

Rosa Provokateur

4th July 2009, 00:09

Okay, that was a bad joke. But Anarchism doesn't require people to succumb to Nihilism, you can totally enjoy values and have faith in morality with a desire for freedom.

True, but Nihilism opens people up to making their own values and morality.

Ele'ill

4th July 2009, 00:53

How many people do you see around that want to give monarchy, or fuedalism another shot?

There's people that want to give anarchism and communism another shot.

Maybe it won't be capitalism. Maybe it will be direct democracy or one of the other several thousand ideologies that exist.

How many people around do you think would actually prefer to be an employee rather than his own boss?

How many people work for themselves now? How many people have a boss?

No, because they are stopping people who are trying to take away their power

I need you to redefine in a couple sentences the original point you were making because you seem to be talking about something different now.

An injection of government into an area occupied by anarchists would be taking away ideological power from anarchism.

No because thats exactly what we are talking about.

Not everyone is being punched in the face by capitalism. Sometimes the closed fist holds enough money to get by.

It would be you defending someone from a closed fist that you are identifying as a punch. But to the other person they're content with what they have.

They wern't attacked by a much larger force ...

:laugh:

So let's say that in theory- much larger forces are fatal to developing communities.

You've gotta find a way to avoid these larger forces. Don't use your ideology as a reactionary ideology or it will be used as a reaction (to a much larger force) and crushed while its young.

Actually I'm not really one of them, I can't afford to be :P. But I know I can hurt them much more doing other things rather than just being a hippy vagabond.

Not if the "hippy vagabonds" are just as or more active than you are. (which i'm willing to bet)