Any major Anarchist Movements in Africa?

[The Accomplice]

I was wondering if there are any Anarchist movements in the continent of Africa that are active in this present time?

Many African countries have suffered tremendously under the rule of capitalism. I'm pretty sure a great deal African peoples would be more open to other systems that would allow them to live freely.

Anyways, like I said earlier, I'm just curious of any major Anarchist movements in Africa that some of you guys might know about.
I would really love to get more information.

[Forward Union]

Yes there is the Platformist group Zabalaza,

and a 2000 strong anarcho syndicalist union and section of the IWA in Nigeria.

[Red October]

There have been many anarchist organizations movements in Africa, but the instability and level of development in many places makes it hard to stay in touch with them and keep track of anarchist news from that area.

[Jack]

There's the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Federation in South Africa, they're quite active and an excellent group whom I would love to work with. In Zambia there was a platformist group called the Workers Solidarity Movement (like its Irish counterpart), but that dissolved in the 90's due to repression and lack of resources.

In Nigeria in 1994 the group the Awareness League proclaimed itself anarcho-syndicalist and joined the IWA, it had about a thousand members and was formerly Marxist-Leninist until many of the members discovered Anarchism. When the coup happened in Nigeria the AL was banned and dissolved, though many of its members are still active. Sam Mbah, an active member of it and author of the book African Anarchism still does work with NGOs in Nigeria exposing government corruption.

In Morocco there's a few hundred anarchists, but they are not organized beyond small groups. In Kenya the Anti Capitalist Convergence, which is mainly a student organization, is largely anarchist. If you go to the ACC website (hard to find, a Geocities account because they can't afford an actual domain) they provide alot of information about anarchism, moreso than any other political belief and appear mostly anarchist.

That's pretty much it, the CNT has contacts in various Northern African countries, and some Portugese anarchist groups have come into contact with Angolan anarchists trying to organize. Zabalaza pretty much distributes most anarchist material on the continent.

[The Accomplice]

but the instability and level of development in many places makes it hard to stay in touch with them and keep track of anarchist news from that area.

Indeed. It would be really interesting to see how these movements are doing in the present time.


Thanks everyone for the information. It's really exciting for me to hear that there are leftist movements that are currently active in the continent of Africa! If anyone has any additional info, by all means post here. Again, much appreciated.

[The Watcher]

The last thing Africa needs is anarchists.
They lagged behind too far, what they need is a strong, wise, righteous and honest leader to pull them out of the shit they are sinking into because of capitalism (should follow the example of China).

[Tjis]

The last thing Africa needs is anarchists.
They lagged behind too far, what they need is a strong, wise, righteous and honest leader to pull them out of the shit they are sinking into because of capitalism (should follow the example of China).

A strong leader is the way to a classless stateless society? Holy shit. Even the anti-revisionists here at least claim to want a workers state instead of a single strong leader.

[Pogue]

The last thing Africa needs is anarchists.
They lagged behind too far, what they need is a strong, wise, righteous and honest leader to pull them out of the shit they are sinking into because of capitalism (should follow the example of China).

What are you on about? We lagged behind too far?

A strong, wise, righteous and honest leader? This isn't the Bible. How would this leader emerge? What powers would they have?

[The Watcher]

Leading is a job, which may be better paid than an ordinary one.
I didn't say king, or dictatorship with terror.
Africa is in chaos. Africa needs order. Tell me how would you bring order without "leading".
People are confused. They need to be told what to do. Some might need to be forced to do.

Of course this is temporary, but I wouldn't start guessing for how long it must be necessary.

There must be bosses. There always been, there always will be.

For example, let's say we are planning a global revolution.
Planning requires talking, harmonization.
Even if we are talking about only Europe, it's several hundred thousand people (at the VERY least).
How are they ALL supposed to talk and plan together? All while keeping it secret?

Instead, every locale has it's leader. And the leaders collaborate. They plan, and they forward the "orders" to the common people.

There is no order where there is no leader.
I'm a strong believer communism, but I don't believe in eliminating classes.
What I want and I can imagine, is to bring the classes to almost the same level, where we can say, even if inaccurately, but we can say, that classes are non-existent, and everyone earns the same wage.
Those leaders, and leaders everywhere, should not get any better wage than a decent working citizen.
For another, crude example, there is a small works, where 10 people work altogether.
In this works, 8 or 9 people do the things they do, work full time, and the 1 or 2 work only in part time, and they also "lead" in part time.
Their salary can be better, but only slightly. I'm thinking of 3-5% here, almost symbolic.


@Haywood
>>We lagged behind too far?

By 'we', you probably mean anarchists. But I didn't. I meant Africa, and the people there.

Where would that leader emerge? Somewhere.
There are good people and bad people, there are strong people and weak people.
Everyone is a combination of properties.
There have been good leaders.
I'd consider Lenin a very good one. Strong, wise. Knew what he was doing, did it very well. Good man, good leader. Too bad Stalin was who he was and where he was.

In Hungary, there have been 2 "big" communist leaders, one was called Rákosi Mátyás, the other was Kádár János.
The former was a demagog Stalin's ass licking stupid faggot with authority. Then came Kádár János, who was a modest man, kept the distance between Moscow and Hungary safely, and he did everything the best he could. Generally, people really liked him (but also feared him).
Sadly, today he is just another "zOMFG COMMUNIST BASTARD RAWR" in the people's eyes.

[Tjis]

There is no order where there is no leader.
I'm a strong believer communism, but I don't believe in eliminating classes.
What I want and I can imagine, is to bring the classes to almost the same level, where we can say, even if inaccurately, but we can say, that classes are non-existent, and everyone earns the same wage.

This is not communism. Sorry to disappoint you. There is no wage in a communist society and there sure as hell aren't any classes.

[Pogue]

People are confused. They need to be told what to do. Some might need to be forced to do.


Who would force them? How would they do it?


Of course this is temporary, but I wouldn't start guessing for how long it must be necessary.

Sounds like a good plan?


For example, let's say we are planning a global revolution.
Planning requires talking, harmonization.
Even if we are talking about only Europe, it's several hundred thousand people (at the VERY least).
How are they ALL supposed to talk and plan together? All while keeping it secret?


Why on earth would we keep it secret?

Have you not heard of the internet? Delegates councils? Communication? How would one sole leader sort this out - how would he understand the situations across the whole region on his own and be able to respond to them, how could he judge every decision correctly. What if he died? What if he did something the people didn't want.


Instead, every locale has it's leader. And the leaders collaborate. They plan, and they forward the "orders" to the common people.

Common people :lol:


There is no order where there is no leader.


Depends on what you mean by leader.


I'm a strong believer communism, but I don't believe in eliminating classes.


This statement is contradictory, you cannot hold both of these positions, they are mutually exclusive.


What I want and I can imagine, is to bring the classes to almost the same level, where we can say, even if inaccurately, but we can say, that classes are non-existent, and everyone earns the same wage.


What do you understand by class? How would you do this? Either way, its not communism.


For another, crude example, there is a small works, where 10 people work altogether.
In this works, 8 or 9 people do the things they do, work full time, and the 1 or 2 work only in part time, and they also "lead" in part time.
Their salary can be better, but only slightly. I'm thinking of 3-5% here, almost symbolic.

Crude indeed. Whats the point of a 'symbolic' wage difference?

[Raúl Duke]

There is no order where there is no leader.
Africa needs...leadersI don't know...I always got the impression that the reason why there's "chaos" in Africa has more to do with many "small leaders" (or corrupt leaders fighting equally corrupt regimes, etc) fighting amongst each other for power, control, etc in their respective nations (i.e. Somalia could be an example of this I guess).

Some of these leaders who play a role in the "chaos" also aim to be a "strong leader" that you propose is a "solution" to Africa's woes.

[The Watcher]

This is not communism. Sorry to disappoint you. There is no wage in a communist society and there sure as hell aren't any classes.

Right, and people are all smiling and nice and they only take what they want.
How about a nice big cup of WAKE THE FUCK UP.


What I "propose", and dream of, is not a utopia, it's very possible, and very similar existed (here).


>>Why on earth would we keep it secret?

So the big bad capitalists don't come and kick your butt before you could have done anything?

Not communism? Whatever. The word communism has degraded for far too long.
I'm nor able, nor willing to find the "true" meaning (but I guess you are right about it).

A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.

Symbolic differences in wage... for... keeping it symbolic but still keeping one from being able to exploit others?

Do you really believe a person who studied biology for what.. like ten years to become a heart surgeon should earn as much as a shop clerk?
If you were to put your communism into practice, suddenly shops will be filled with people WORKING there, and when you go to a hospital for whatever reason, for example you had a stroke, well, it will be empty.
Shit sucks doesn't it.


@Johhny
Corruption is a "key" word here.

And I also said not only strong leader, but a righteous one.
Lenin didn't seek his own welfare. He believed in something, something that is good to the people, and he tried to achieve it. Strong and good man.

[Pogue]

Right, and people are all smiling and nice and they only take what they want.
How about a nice big cup of WAKE THE FUCK UP.


No need to get angry. What he is saying is that its a logical contradiction to 'believe in communism' but still want classes to exist, because communism is defined as a classless, stateless society.


So the big bad capitalists don't come and kick your butt before you could have done anything?

I don't see how this is relevant. You can't draw up secret plans for a revolution, and its hardly something you can keep secret.


Not communism? Whatever. The word communism has degraded for far too long.
I'm nor able, nor willing to find the "true" meaning (but I guess you are right about it).


Yes, I am right about it.


A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.


This Shakesperian gem does not make sense in this context. What your doing is taking the name rose and calling something that isn't a rose a rose. Shakespere was saying how if its the same thing but has a different name, it'd still have the same properties, the opposite of what your saying.


Symbolic differences in wage... for... keeping it symbolic but still keeping one from being able to exploit others?

But what would be the point? If it was just symbolic, why would it need to exist in the first place? It makes no sense.

Also, who would pay these wages? Under communism, there are no wages.


Do you really believe a person who studied biology for what.. like ten years to become a heart surgeon should earn as much as a shop clerk?
If you were to put your communism into practice, suddenly shops will be filled with people WORKING there, and when you go to a hospital for whatever reason, for example you had a stroke, well, it will be empty.
Shit sucks doesn't it.

Communism isn't about people getting wages, though. Under communism, there'd be no need for anyone to receive more than someone else, because everyone would be receiving enough to live their lfie to the full. This is what communism is. I see no reason why people shouldn't all get the same amount if its possible for them to get this and still live an enjoyable life. This stage would take a long time to reach of course, but as communists it's what we progress towards.

[Pogue]

And I also said not only strong leader, but a righteous one.
Lenin didn't seek his own welfare. He believed in something, something that is good to the people, and he tried to achieve it. Strong and good man.

What the hell is a 'righteous leader'? Since when did we assess people in religious language?

Regardless of Lenin's personal ambitions his actions and his natural position as the head of a vanguard meant he would be part of the degeneration of the Russian revolution, as he was. I think history shows us the idea of a glorious revolutionary leader is a flawed one.

[The Watcher]

I wasn't angry, just trying to be emphatic. If I was angry, I'd just ignore ^^

The "rose" in my way of thinking was the world "dreamed" by me, a good place to live.
And it's the same if we only think about "good to live there".
I couldn't and wouldn't say living in your idea of communism is any better or worse than living in my dear utopia.



This stage would take a long time to reach of course, but as communists it's what we progress towards.So, this stage is not possible to just pull out of nothing, is it? Well, mine is (more or less, hehe).
And I never ever thought of my "idea" as an ultimate stage of society.
But it's possible to reach. If all goes right, jealousy and human evil is exterminated, and everything balances itself.

Symbolism, if nothing else, a nice thing to have.
What I said about shopping clerks and heart surgeons is right, and will be right for veeeeeeeeeeeery long.

You live in the UK. Do you hate the Queen? Well, and old hag with lots of money and no job whatsoever. But she isn't evil exactly either is she?
As far as I know, the queen is the servant of people.
She is there, if necessary, she can act with her authority. But she doesn't disturb anyone either.
A "communist state" (inb4 contradiction in terms) leader would be very similar (in time).

There ALWAYS will be times, when a leader, a wise authority is required to organize.
Democracy fails, centralism is the key.
What would YOU do if a natural catastrophe struck near you? Panic?
Would you call together the people to discuss what to do next?
Probably the latter.
The latter fails for two things: if YOU call the people, you already appointed yourself as a leader (no matter how small).
Secondly, in situations like that, there is NO TIME to discuss shit like that.
A good leader is wise, and a wise man feels what to do.

Even if your idea of communism could ever work in the real world, whenever a similar event would happen, it breaks up, people appoint themselves as (small) leaders, and try to issue control the weak minded ones.
Are they evil? No. They try to save others, and themselves.

Another example:
In the navy, there is hierarchy.
A captain gives orders to the crew.
An emergency situation strikes, for example the ship starts to sink: the captain orders and controls evacuation.
Is he evil? He is the last man to leave the ship, and most likely dies.

Give me one, just ONE example for a small or big system that works without leader, or ever worked.


Since when is "righteous" a religious term? If it is so, then I'm very sad that such a basic property of man became so rare.

How about a sweet dream of a factory worker some fifty years ago? Let's picture. The person and other workers march up to the boss' office, kill him, and pay everyone equally. How nice.
But notice the man who
- actually started this mutiny
- actually killed the boss
- actually paid the workers

When the leader was gone, for example in Hungary (but I think I could mention any other Eastern-Europe country), people were confused, they didn't know what the hell to do.
It's a natural thing to do.
Among animals, like wolves, there is a leader of the pack, but I could mention ANY animal species (except ones where a single lives alone of course), lions, elephants, monkeys, etc.
We are animals too, except we are sophisticated.
And we don't require leadership in every aspect of our lives.
As we progress, we require less and less. But we will always need it a little.

EDIT: I think we are sailing far off course (topic) :D :D

[Raúl Duke]

Corruption is a "key" word here.

And I also said not only strong leader, but a righteous one.
Lenin didn't seek his own welfare. He believed in something, something that is good to the people, and he tried to achieve it. Strong and good man.

I'm sorry...I don't believe in "perfectly righteous" leaders.
Surely, I know that Lenin was a sincere communist but the thing is...
Will is not stronger then material conditions.
The material conditions of leadership seems to have a tendency to corrupt.
Even Lenin showed some authoritarian traits once he got into power
(and Trotsky even more so, ahem Kronstadt)
They couldn't stand their left-opponents and if I remember went against them and/or played a role in their demise.

[The Watcher]

Mustn't be perfect. Just good enough. And I'd say Lenin, and Trotsky would have been good enough.
There is no surprise they hated each other, if I was around that time and similarly "big", they wold probably have hated me too, and I them.

Lenin had a dream, and evidently fought very very hard to achieve it. Who the hell would compromise at the very end of the path?
If Trotsky led, Russia would have been well.
If Lenin led, Russia would have been well.
Differences are differences, but the end is the same. And that is what I meant by the Shakespearian gem.

Authority by itself is not evil, nor good. It's a tool.
Some can carry and use it well, some others for only their own good, and exploiting others.
A good man would use it for good, a bad man would use it for bad.

[Pogue]

I wasn't angry, just trying to be emphatic. If I was angry, I'd just ignore ^^

The "rose" in my way of thinking was the world "dreamed" by me, a good place to live.
And it's the same if we only think about "good to live there".
I couldn't and wouldn't say living in your idea of communism is any better or worse than living in my dear utopia.


Ok whatever.


So, this stage is not possible to just pull out of nothing, is it? Well, mine is (more or less, hehe).
And I never ever thought of my "idea" as an ultimate stage of society.
But it's possible to reach. If all goes right, jealousy and human evil is exterminated, and everything balances itself.

Load of empty rhetoric, heard it all before.



You live in the UK. Do you hate the Queen? Well, and old hag with lots of money and no job whatsoever. But she isn't evil exactly either is she?
As far as I know, the queen is the servant of people.
She is there, if necessary, she can act with her authority. But she doesn't disturb anyone either.
A "communist state" (inb4 contradiction in terms) leader would be very similar (in time).



I despise inherited privilige so yes, I hate the Queen as a figure. I don't know her personally.

So you want a communist state with a monarchistic figure in it? What would be the point in that? Thats a really stupid idea, you're not even attempting to explain why you want these stupid things.


There ALWAYS will be times, when a leader, a wise authority is required to organize.
Democracy fails, centralism is the key.
What would YOU do if a natural catastrophe struck near you? Panic?
Would you call together the people to discuss what to do next?
Probably the latter.
The latter fails for two things: if YOU call the people, you already appointed yourself as a leader (no matter how small).
Secondly, in situations like that, there is NO TIME to discuss shit like that.
A good leader is wise, and a wise man feels what to do.

I don't see how one 'wise leader' is better equippred to deal with a natural disaster than the people themselves and the emergency services. If anything, decentralisation, with federal, delegated and mininal centralisation has historically responded better to emergency situations, such as how the trade union federations beat abck the fascist advance of Franco before the Republican government could even respond. I think you see people as being passive and stupid, which they are not.


Even if your idea of communism could ever work in the real world, whenever a similar event would happen, it breaks up, people appoint themselves as (small) leaders, and try to issue control the weak minded ones.
Are they evil? No. They try to save others, and themselves.


But theres a difference between someone being lsitened to and respected because there is a reason, i.e. they have knowledge and experience. I accept the authority of knowledge, if I have consented to it, but I don't accept the authority of so called 'wise leaders' who govern areas of my life they have no right nor reason to govern.


Another example:
In the navy, there is hierarchy.
A captain gives orders to the crew.
An emergency situation strikes, for example the ship starts to sink: the captain orders and controls evacuation.
Is he evil? He is the last man to leave the ship, and most likely dies.

So one hypothetical isolated and subjective examples proves your point? Nice one.


Give me one, just ONE example for a small or big system that works without leader, or ever worked.

Anarchist Catalonia.


Since when is "righteous" a religious term? If it is so, then I'm very sad that such a basic property of man became so rare.

Of course its a religious term. It refers to absolutely nothing in the real world. What property, outside of religion, is 'righteous'?


When the leader was gone, for example in Hungary (but I think I could mention any other Eastern-Europe country), people were confused, they didn't know what the hell to do.

Which is why we believe in empowering people to organise things themselves. If you force people to live udner dictatorial tyranny, then they lose skills to work for themselves. The point is to build these skills up, which is icnredibly easily done. I don't even know what example you refer to with Hungary though, but the loss of a leader casuing chaos to me hilights how stupid it is to put one person in charge. As I said, what happens when they die?


It's a natural thing to do.

Wow, what a strong argument. I particularly liked the scientific evidence.


Among animals, like wolves, there is a leader of the pack, but I could mention ANY animal species (except ones where a single lives alone of course), lions, elephants, monkeys, etc.

Yeh, because humans are like wolves. I suggest you read Kropotkin's Mutual Aid, though.


We are animals too, except we are sophisticated.
And we don't require leadership in every aspect of our lives.
As we progress, we require less and less. But we will always need it a little.

Baseless opinion, no facts.

[Pogue]

Mustn't be perfect. Just good enough. And I'd say Lenin, and Trotsky would have been good enough.
There is no surprise they hated each other, if I was around that time and similarly "big", they wold probably have hated me too, and I them.

Lenin had a dream, and evidently fought very very hard to achieve it. Who the hell would compromise at the very end of the path?
If Trotsky led, Russia would have been well.
If Lenin led, Russia would have been well.
Differences are differences, but the end is the same. And that is what I meant by the Shakespearian gem.

Authority by itself is not evil, nor good.
Some can carry and use it well, some others for only their own good, and exploiting others.

Was Trotsky being righteous when he supressed the Kronstadt revolt? Was Lenin being a great leader when he took power away from the worker's councils?

Stop hero worshipping the 'great men of history'.

[The Watcher]

So you want a communist state with a monarchistic figure in it? What would be the point in that? Thats a really stupid idea, you're not even attempting to explain why you want these stupid things.
A symbol strengthens unity, it makes people feel they belong to somewhere... Yet it doesn't point to an enemy like nationalism.
A symbol is nice, even if you think it's stupid, even if it's no more than a ornament, it still unites the people. And a symbol is a symbol, regardless if if it's a red star, a hammer and sickle, or a person with crown on their head and gold in their pocket.



I don't see how one 'wise leader' is better equippred to deal with a natural disaster than the people themselves and the emergency services.

Do emergency services work democratically too?



But theres a difference between someone being lsitened to and respected because there is a reason, i.e. they have knowledge and experience. I accept the authority of knowledge, if I have consented to it, but I don't accept the authority of so called 'wise leaders' who govern areas of my life they have no right nor reason to govern.

What exactly is so important in your life that is governed despite your disliking it?




So one hypothetical isolated and subjective examples proves your point? Nice one.
Does the word "another"(which begins your quote of my post) tell you anything? I didn't mention only one. As a matter of fact, I could write a bunch of books full of examples. No point in doing so.




Anarchist Catalonia.
Some crazy hippies who took the chance to break themselves apart from another Country and existed for less than 3 years do not qualify as a working system for me (but that's just me).
I'm also curious if everyone in that region agreed to that.



Of course its a religious term. It refers to absolutely nothing in the real world. What property, outside of religion, is 'righteous'?

Honesty? Modesty? Wisdom?


Which is why we believe in empowering people to organise things themselves. If you force people to live udner dictatorial tyranny, then they lose skills to work for themselves. The point is to build these skills up, which is icnredibly easily done. I don't even know what example you refer to with Hungary though, but the loss of a leader casuing chaos to me hilights how stupid it is to put one person in charge. As I said, what happens when they die?


A leader is followed by a leader.
In the beginning, Hungary had a leash very tight around her neck. But over the years, the least was thoughtfully loosen. People had more and more freedom.


Wow, what a strong argument. I particularly liked the scientific evidence.
Common sense, and an idiom.

Yeh, because humans are like wolves. I suggest you read Kropotkin's Mutual Aid, though.

All animals are alike. Human is an animal. I suggest you read Darwin's On the Origin of Species.



Baseless opinion, no facts.

Well of course. Why don't you try to prove it with a counter-example?
On the timeline, all time past and the present support my "baseless factless opinion".
Your turn.

[The Watcher]

Was Trotsky being righteous when he supressed the Kronstadt revolt? Was Lenin being a great leader when he took power away from the worker's councils?



I'm not able, not willing, and not entitled to judge Trotsky's actions. Even if it's history.
I don't know why he did it. Do you?

Same goes for Lenin.


Stop hero worshipping the 'great men of history'.No.
Stop thinking you are expert in communism if you haven't seen or heard with your own eyes and ears any presently or previously working part of it, will you?
I know your response. And I consider it settled.


..Duh, this is too much for me. I'm not a politician. Just a man.

[Pogue]

symbol strengthens unity, it makes people feel they belong to somewhere... Yet it doesn't point to an enemy like nationalism.
A symbol is nice, even if you think it's stupid, even if it's no more than a ornament, it still unites the people. And a symbol is a symbol, regardless if if it's a red star, a hammer and sickle, or a person with crown on their head and gold in their pocket.


And you think an privilgied authority figurehead is a good symbol for a communist society?


Do emergency services work democratically too?

They should do, yes.


What exactly is so important in your life that is governed despite your disliking it?

What sort of communist would honestly ask this question?


Does the word "another"(which begins your quote of my post) tell you anything? I didn't mention only one. As a matter of fact, I could write a bunch of books full of examples. No point in doing so.

Wait....what? You asked for one example, and I gave you one.


Some crazy hippies who took the chance to break themselves apart from another Country and existed for less than 3 years do not qualify as a working system for me (but that's just me).
I'm also curious if everyone in that region agreed to that.

Crazy hippies? What the fuck are you talking about? You think that a mass movement of the working class whcih fought agaisnt the state, fascism, burecracy and privilige, which put hundreds of industries under workers control and fought as bravely as it did, were 'some crazy hippies'? Your clearly very predjudiced, and extremely ignorant, and you clearly have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about. Absolutely none, you are an complete and utter idiot.

And yes, seeing as it was a mass anarchist movement which created community and workplace councils practicising diretc democracy I'd say it was very hard for them not to agree. It also worked, because productivity increased by 20%, and the anarchists were the first to beat back Franco.


Honesty? Modesty? Wisdom?

They are not definition of 'righteous'.


A leader is followed by a leader.
In the beginning, Hungary had a leash very tight around her neck. But over the years, the least was thoughtfully loosen. People had more and more freedom.

What are you even talking about?


Common sense, and an idiom.

Once more, really strong and convincing argument, I like the use of evidence.


All animals are alike. Human is an animal. I suggest you read Darwin's On the Origin of Species.

I've read it, and no where does it say 'Humans behave like wolves'.


Well of course. Why don't you try to prove it with a counter-example?
On the timeline, all time past and the present support my "baseless factless opinion".
Your turn.

Wait, so you make a claim, fail to back it up, but it becomes my burden of truth to prove that your claim is incorrect? Clearly you don't know how to argue.


I'm not able, not willing, and not entitled to judge Trotsky's actions. Even if it's history.
I don't know why he did it. Do you?

Same goes for Lenin.

I'd say it was their believe in a vanguard and a workers state which they felt they themselves (Lenin and Trotsky) could lead.


No.
Stop thinking you are expert in communism if you haven't seen or heard with your own eyes and ears any presently or previously working part of it, will you?
I know your response. And I consider it settled.

I clearly know alot more about it than you, having studied it and been involved in the movement for a while.

It's not settled - your makig ignorant claims, and I am knocking them down one by one, and you respond with more senseless and unsubstantiated rubbish.



..Duh, this is too much for me. I'm not a politician. Just a man.


No, your just both arogant and ignorant, thats all.

[Pogue]

The Watcher has put me on ignore, so I'll happily accept victory in this one.

[Tjis]

It's a shame the thread derailed so much though. Perhaps a thread split would be nice?

[nuisance]

Mad respect to Haywoods Finger in putting up with this strange Watcher fellow

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

ass licking stupid faggot

This language really is unacceptable.

[crazytaxi]

This language really is unacceptable.
dont wory, no one takes people who talk like that seriously anyway. we all realise they are morons ;)

[The Accomplice]

dont wory, no one takes people who talk like that seriously anyway. we all realise they are morons ;)

Or probably just an internet troll.