Is communism an "extremist" ideology? What determines extremism?

[Kingpin]

I told someone that accusations of extremism are pretty much bull because the state, which is inherently relies on violence for enforcement and expansion, has no superior ground to base others on. I got this response:



"We have systems in this country to redress wrongs committed by the government or officials. Legal systems and elections are the most common. This allows for stability in our society and economy. We live in a democracy. Fight with your ballot. Write letters to your congressmen. If you want to take away my right to vote, expect to be dealt with."


Basically I'm looking for resources that explore the idea that voting, whether in the United States or 3rd world countries such as Central/South American countries, is not a true expression of democracy and is devoid of real change.

[RGacky3]

You can look up public opinion polls and compare them to public policy, then look at corporate interests and public policy. The health care reform bill was a perfect example of this. The mandate was extreamly unpopular, the public option was extremely popular, but as far as coporate interests it was the other way around, now look what got through? Voting is of little significance because the money always wins.

[Zanthorus]

What determines extremism is whatever is an extreme distance from the particular persons perspective. It is wholly subjective what is "extreme". Many communists would regard liberals as "extreme" for believing honestly that their vote for some vaguely nice looking centre-right fellow will somehow solve all the problems of capitalism.

I would note that "extremism" though is an insult usually only used by vile political moderates who are completely subservient to the status quo. I've never seen communists argue against fascists for their "extremism" for example.

[NecroCommie]

The presence of parties and party discipline is a huge deterrent to democracy. The "importance" of parties in parliamentarism basically forces people to choose between sets of oppinions, instead of making a statement issue by issue. This does not change, even if none of the "sets" offer alternatives. A good example would be american parliamentarism, where none of the realistic parties offer alternatives to privately run healthcare, media, cultural or judicial services.

Also, no such parties will ever sprout to existence, because setting up and upkeeping a major political party requires continuous support from major media powers... which just happen to be privately owned. Also, gaining financial support for a real alternative party would be troublesome, since no major concentration of capital is willing to back up a party that opposes concentration of capital.

These hinderances are only existent in arbitary mockery of democracy we know as parliamentarism.

One also, has to notice the role of electoral representatives. Depending on the country, your representative might only have the power to vote on what other political elements decide. Many forms of parliamentarism use specialiced organizations to propose and phrase legistlation. A process in which elected representatives rarely have power, other than to reject or accept these made decisions. Sometimes they might not have even that. Hundreds of non-elected bureucrats have more power than all of your representatives put together, and these positions are decided 100% by power politics within and between parties and their elite members.

There are ofcourse other equally pressing reasons to hate parliamentarism, but these alone would be enough to topple the most stubborn of conservatists.

[mikelepore]

Sometimes extremism is what people call an idea that a few hundred years later is recognized by everyone as common sense. The proposal to abolish monarchy was extremism. The proposal to abolish slavery was extremism. Someday in the future there will be a classless society, and all of the people will collectively own the means of production. Then they will look back on our own time and laugh at the way such a common sense idea was considered extremism.

[Gecko]

Sometimes extremism is what people call an idea that a few hundred years later is recognized by everyone as common sense. The proposal to abolish monarchy was extremism. The proposal to abolish slavery was extremism. Someday in the future there will be a classless society, and all of the people will collectively own the means of production. Then they will look back on our own time and laugh at the way such a common sense idea was considered extremism.

you're contradicting yourself..
when the working class embraces communism as it's guiding ideology it will become totally "common sense" to them at that time..not a few hundred years later..

[mikelepore]

Why should my comment have included any reference to the instant in time "when the working class embraces communism"? When it's my comment, I get to pick the subject of it.

[Gecko]

Why should my comment have included any reference to the instant in time "when the working class embraces communism"? When it's my comment, I get to pick the subject of it.

I dared criticize your post..so you snitched me off with that bullshit neg rep crap which is just a manipulative rigged system of snitching setup to isolate opposing ideas from the revleft insiders "good ole boys" club. ..not so much different from the old south where whites manipulated the voting system to exclude blacks from voting by their own system of "rep" and "points"..
..if revleft was honest and fair they would get rid of that jiveass rep and points bullshit and just let the dialogue
take it's own course through argument..it's called dialectics for your information..

?what kind of communist are you anyway?
I would never snitch someone off for disagreeing with me or criticizing me over a matter of perspective..
this is one communist who despises and abhors little snitches..
by the way ..snitches are very popular with the FBI too..

[AK]

I dared criticize your post..so you snitched me off with that bullshit neg rep crap which is just a manipulative rigged system of snitching setup to isolate opposing ideas from the revleft insiders "good ole boys" club. ..not so much different from the old south where whites manipulated the voting system to exclude blacks from voting by their own system of "rep" and "points"..
You have the same ability to take some rep. Either use it, or don't make such ridiculous posts next time.

?what kind of communist are you anyway?
He's a DeLeonist.

I would never snitch someone off for disagreeing with me or criticizing me over a matter of perspective..
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1761551&postcount=8

this is one communist who despises and abhors little snitches.. by the way ..snitches are very popular with the FBI too..
Which is presumably why you're on this board, no?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Basically I'm looking for resources that explore the idea that voting, whether in the United States or 3rd world countries such as Central/South American countries, is not a true expression of democracy and is devoid of real change.

I support voting as a means for collective decision making, but the parliamentary-style systems of capitalism are generally rigged (or "protected" as bourgeois leaders say) against popular will. So in the US, there is the 2 party system that makes it very hard for any candidate who does not have the backing of both wealthy industries and corporations as well as the political establishment. In California, Meg Whitman is basically buying the Republican nomination for Governor and that's usually how things are done today (as opposed to political machines as in the past). Why isn't Obama doing shit to BP or the banks or whatever... if elections were really the true expression of the popular will, then Obama would have taken over BP and never given billions to the banks because I have not met one liberal who voted for Obama say that these were the kinds of things they were hoping for and expecting after casting their ballot. In fact wasn't liberal anger over McCain's "Drill Baby Drill" mantras one of the things that motivated Obama supporters - and yet before the spill Obama opened up the gulf to more drilling and just yesterday said that he was re-opening the gulf for drilling after temporarily putting more operations on hold after the spill?! (of course many liberal defend and apologize for Obama's betrayals after the fact, but that is because they want to defend "their guy" against the "other guy").

But the bigger issue is not just the fact that voting and the electoral system under capitalism is rigged with moneyed interests (because this could be easily reformed and is much better in many other countries compared to the US). Contrary to high school social studies classes and college sociology departments throughout the capitalist world, the state is not some neutral body that balances a bunch of competing interests. Capitalist states were created by and for the defense of property rights and trade and all the essential elements needed for capitalism to flourish. It has developed a great deal since then, but it is still essentially set up to defend the interests of big business at home and in competition abroad with other powers.

So to me, the issue with the response the OP got about voting, is not the act of voting itself (a union votes, clubs vote, kids on the playground use a show of hands to make decisions) but the idea of reform-ism. Can you use the system to change the system? If the idea that the state is a neutral arbitrator of social conflicts, then this idea would hold up. Instead in history we see that the capitalist state has FREQUENTLY been used to subvert popular will even when it is expressed through the legal avenues provided by the system. So when Chavez was elected, there was a bosses strike and they tried to shut down production and provoke a political crisis - when that failed they tried a coup. Allende is a famous example - a socialist elected through popular vote was replaced by a military dictatorship through state-agencies. The owners would rather not let things get to this point, but historically they have not flinched if other more subtle means of subverting popular demands don't work.

[Gecko]

You have the same ability to take some rep. Either use it, or don't make such ridiculous posts next time.

He's a DeLeonist.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1761551&postcount=8

Which is presumably why you're on this board, no?


you're not only a contemptible little snitch..you're also a fool..

[Bud Struggle]

you're not only a contemptible little snitch..you're also a fool..

Calm down. It's the wrong place for all this Comrade. Besides, forget about those green and red thingies--if you worry about them you'll just go crazy.

[Mindtoaster]

not so much different from the old south where whites manipulated the voting system to exclude blacks from voting by their own system of "rep" and "points"..

:blink:

[BeerShaman]

Well, there is no extremism. If something is popular or something happens often etc and people get used to it, most often it will lose its label as an extremist action. Every action has causes and consequents and satisfies needs or desires. Killing yourself is not extremist, living is not extremist, loving is not, hating is not. Being a commie is not, being a fascist is not.
Now, the parliamentary system of democracy is not democratic and we have no democracy. The word democracy means that the people have the power and can take decisions for themselves etc... it means that they are free. The matter is also not only if we have democracy but if we are free, ask this to people. "Are you free? Really? Let's see..." In our current situation we are not free nor is there democracy. We vote for a limited variety of parties and then those parties do whatever they want. If we do not like them we bring them down and vote for another. However, determining who will govern us and then choosing whether to bring 'em down or not is already wrong, we already have lost the game, because until then a party can do whatever they want. It can rape your wages and it can put to you taxes that will make you a slave or a beggar. It may abolish even this very system and build another without even asking. The same for personalities. It is all that we have a king and we can decide whether he will rule or not. Well, he 'll still be a king. So democracy means that you are free to decide for yourself and you do not let anyone else do that. You are free until the place where you reach the freedom of another. There does your freedom truly stop. Now you are not free. Freedom means autonomy and the free right of taking initiatives.
Not to mention that capitalism creates a pole in "democracy" which puts monetary gain in a cenral role, thus destroying the right to live as being and transforming you into a product, one that is useful as long as it is exploited, then it goes to the rubbish bin. That's why the fascists are calling us revolutionaries, useless and a danger for "society" (capitalist statist exploitary society). Because we do not want to work for the monetary gain of few, and we preach a way to freedom.

Thus, "Neither fascism, nor democracy, bring down the state, it is time for anarchy!":lol:

[AK]

you're not only a contemptible little snitch..you're also a fool..
Way to not address any of my points :thumbup1:

[synthesis]

:blink:

You don't actually take this shit seriously, do you? He's obviously "having some fun with us."

[AK]

You don't actually take this shit seriously, do you? He's obviously "having some fun with us."
No I'm pretty sure Gecko means what they say.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

If not extremist, communism is certainly exclusivist. Communists are almost religious when it comes to following their principles, which is why they antagonize a lot of people. There is no flexibility, no tolerance. I'll give an example: religion. A capitalist doesn't care what religion you follow as long as you're no threat to capitalism.

Contrast this attitude with that of the communist. You'll find communists making hurtful, insensitive comments about religion. And to what end? It only antagonizes people who may otherwise have socialist tendencies. By thus following an exclusivist attitude, communists have managed to make enemies out of everyone, including those who actually like communism.:rolleyes:

[We Shall Rise Again]

''Our demans most moderate are, we only want the earth'' - James Connolly.

[mikelepore]

I dared criticize your post..so you snitched me off with that bullshit neg rep crap which is just a manipulative rigged system of snitching setup to isolate opposing ideas from the revleft insiders "good ole boys" club

I have never clicked on a reputation link, either positive or negative, for anyone at this site. Recheck your sources.

[Ax Pamericana]

It just means that it's far to one side of the current political spectrum of public opinion, i.e. at the "extremes". Forget the word's negative connotations. There's no causation between how extremist an opinion is and how correct it is.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Its can lead to extreme starvation b/c of state mismanagement of the economy. It really isn't all that extreme just a plain failure in time that has been implemented then thrown away under the threat of riot, in favor for a mixture of private and collective ownership. Communism can't survive b/c it can not keep up with production which is why it has always been melded into a Frankenstein with some private ownership. However followers of communism can have extreme tendencies and can be extremely stupid of reality and their own asinine ideology.

[NecroCommie]

Would you mind elaborating what exactly has failed in communism, besides the rabid agression by imperialist powers? Or what exactly is a failure in this regard? Or even if it has failed, why is the failure an inherent and non-removable byproduct of communism?

Instead of endless claims, try arguments.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Would you mind elaborating what exactly has failed in communism, besides the rabid agression by imperialist powers? Or what exactly is a failure in this regard? Or even if it has failed, why is the failure an inherent and non-removable byproduct of communism?

Instead of endless claims, try arguments.

All communist regimes (Russia, NK etc.) have been disasters. If you argue that those weren't 'true communist' regimes, then who in the world is going to implement this 'true communism'? When and how? Does that person have a magic wand?

Besides, why would anyone bother establishing 'true communism' when the less-than-true version gives them power and authority over the masses?

These are questions which most communists skip. That's because they fail to recognize that authority is the real problem, and the accumulation of capital is just a corollary and nothing more.

[#FF0000]

These are questions which most communists skip

No they're not.

[Jazzratt]

you're not only a contemptible little snitch..you're also a fool..
Do you actually know what "snitch" means?


Its can lead to extreme starvation b/c of state mismanagement of the economy. It really isn't all that extreme just a plain failure in time that has been implemented then thrown away under the threat of riot, in favor for a mixture of private and collective ownership. Communism can't survive b/c it can not keep up with production which is why it has always been melded into a Frankenstein with some private ownership. However followers of communism can have extreme tendencies and can be extremely stupid of reality and their own asinine ideology.
God damn you're stupid.

[#FF0000]

NOBODY STARVES IN CAPITALISM GUYS

what's a india???

[soyonstout]

by the way ..snitches are very popular with the FBI too..

How can you compare giving someone negative reputation points with being an FBI informant? What have the two got to do with each other? One involves a bad reputation in an online forum and the other involves incarceration or worse punishments from the state. I don't see how these are that similar.

-soyons tout

[soyonstout]

These are questions which most communists skip.

Starting from Mark & Engels these questions have been dealt with, as early as 1847 it was recognized that communism could not occur in one country or even a handful of countries, but would only work on a global scale (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm)

Questions of Authority and the State have existed since the beginning too, as Marx' critique of politics in many ways began with a critique of the State (see Introduction to Critique of Philosophy of Right http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm) and Workers' Democracy took center stage for communists especially right after the Paris Commune and in 1905 with the birth of the Soviets (workers' councils) in Russia.

-soyons tout

[Mahatma Gandhi]

NOBODY STARVES IN CAPITALISM GUYS

Does that mean self-proclaimed communist regimes must also starve people?:confused:


what's a india???

Hardly capitalist. It is a mixture of anarchism and feudalism.

[Bud Struggle]

If not extremist, communism is certainly exclusivist. Communists are almost religious when it comes to following their principles, which is why they antagonize a lot of people. There is no flexibility, no tolerance. I'll give an example: religion. A capitalist doesn't care what religion you follow as long as you're no threat to capitalism.

Contrast this attitude with that of the communist. You'll find communists making hurtful, insensitive comments about religion. And to what end? It only antagonizes people who may otherwise have socialist tendencies. By thus following an exclusivist attitude, communists have managed to make enemies out of everyone, including those who actually like communism.:rolleyes:

Communism is philosophically Materialistic so in that respect it is exclusive. It theoretically can tolerate people who have a personal dualistic or idealistic belief--but Communism can't function as a political or economic theory in those contexts.

To believe in a Religious, spiritual or supernatural reality in addition to the material one goes indirect opposition to the Communist/Materialist world view--hence the active opposition to such things.

Further Marxism actively defined Religion as an opiate. If people believe in a better life in the hereafter they don't have as much reason to change around things in there here and now. They can easily bide their time in the present and let the Capitalists, Imperialist, etc. rule the earth while waiting for their reward in heaven--which for a Materialist doesn't exist.

Communism has no choice but to oppose Religion on both a philosophical and practical basis.

[NecroCommie]

Does that mean self-proclaimed communist regimes must also starve people?:confused:
If you think that previous "communist" countries were what communism inherently leads to, I have two points for you.

1) Correlation does not mean causality

2) To suggest such a thing, is to ignore all the countless non-statist examples of communism. Such things would include worker co-operatives, communes, entire counties separating from capitalist opression (without notice from the wider world), and so on.

Also, to claim that the poverty of these regions are due to non-capitalist economies, is to suggest that material conditions play no role whatsoever in economy ever. It is beyond all logic to contest the ridiculous nature of such delusions.



Hardly capitalist. It is a mixture of anarchism and feudalism.
I would like to hear your definition of capitalism and feudalism.

[RGacky3]

Communism is philosophically Materialistic so in that respect it is exclusive. It theoretically can tolerate people who have a personal dualistic or idealistic belief--but Communism can't function as a political or economic theory in those contexts.

Communism is older than Materialism and Marxism, from each according to his ability to each according to his need was a principle centuries before Marx amung the first century christians.

As far as politican or economic theory, why cannot it function apart from materialism, first of all materialism is not a all encompesing theory, its a tool of analysis, second, the very idea of communism is based on ethical principles to begin with, third, Marxism is just a analysis of capitalism and of communist theory, Marxism is not the end all of Communism.


To believe in a Religious, spiritual or supernatural reality in addition to the material one goes indirect opposition to the Communist/Materialist world view--hence the active opposition to such things.

Not really, a Materialistic world view is that of how society functions now under class rule, the spiritual aspect of ones viewpoint is compleatly seperate. ALso Communism is not ONLY defined by materialism.


Further Marxism actively defined Religion as an opiate. If people believe in a better life in the hereafter they don't have as much reason to change around things in there here and now. They can easily bide their time in the present and let the Capitalists, Imperialist, etc. rule the earth while waiting for their reward in heaven--which for a Materialist doesn't exist.

If that really is the case then no religious people would be political or try to do anything good for themselves, thats rediculous, most religious people want to have a good life on earth, even if they believe in an after life, hell, you did.


Communism has no choice but to oppose Religion on both a philosophical and practical basis.

The apostles in the first century might disagree with you, as would many of the puritans that came to the United States to begin with. Using your argument Capitalism is also incompatible with religion because why would you want to get rich when you have an after life, its rediculous.

Materialism is a TOOL, thats it.

[Bud Struggle]

Communism is older than Materialism and Marxism, from each according to his ability to each according to his need was a principle centuries before Marx amung the first century christians. They believed in providing for the poor and sharing with the poor--all ordered not by society but by personal committment. If that's what you want--I'm a Communist.


As far as politican or economic theory, why cannot it function apart from materialism, first of all materialism is not a all encompesing theory, its a tool of analysis, second, the very idea of communism is based on ethical principles to begin with, third, Marxism is just a analysis of capitalism and of communist theory, Marxism is not the end all of Communism. Of course Material is all encompassing--each and EVERY time Communism was tried in any major way (yes there are little blips and bleeps like the EZLN) it has taken a universal approach to society, art, , music, economics, history and politics. It allows no other understanding of philosophy to exist.


Not really, a Materialistic world view is that of how society functions now under class rule, the spiritual aspect of ones viewpoint is compleatly seperate. ALso Communism is not ONLY defined by materialism. No. Capitalism doesn't really care what you believe. Communism has proven itself over and over again to function in away similar to the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. It wants a uniform system based on logic and rationality, you can't have that if people believe in some God that gives revelation that tells you how to behave.


If that really is the case then no religious people would be political or try to do anything good for themselves, thats rediculous, most religious people want to have a good life on earth, even if they believe in an after life, hell, you did. I was only paraphrasing Marx. From what I understand Marx blamed religion for the complacentcy of humanity towards obvious injustice.


The apostles in the first century might disagree with you, as would many of the puritans that came to the United States to begin with. Using your argument Capitalism is also incompatible with religion because why would you want to get rich when you have an after life, its rediculous.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html


Materialism is a TOOL, thats it. Then why did the USSR and China and every other "Socialist" country work so hard to abolish religion?

[RGacky3]

They believed in providing for the poor and sharing with the poor--all ordered not by society but by personal committment. If that's what you want--I'm a Communist.


Thats not what the apostles argued in Acts chapter 2 and 4, and when the apostles actually put a man and woman to death for withholding his and her property and lying about it.


Of course Material is all encompassing--each and EVERY time Communism was tried in any major way (yes there are little blips and bleeps like the EZLN) it has taken a universal approach to society, art, , music, economics, history and politics. It allows no other understanding of philosophy to exist.


give me an example? Also the USSR and maoist china and leninist regiems don't count, becuase they did'nt actually practice communism, read about materialism, its just a way of analysing history THATS IT.


No. Capitalism doesn't really care what you believe. Communism has proven itself over and over again to function in away similar to the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. It wants a uniform system based on logic and rationality, you can't have that if people believe in some God that gives revelation that tells you how to behave.


Why not? Tell me why a system of common control of production and resources kicks out the option of religion.

Again, the USSR and China don't count, if they wern't commonly controled ITS NOT COMMUNISM OR EVEN SOCIALISM.


I was only paraphrasing Marx. From what I understand Marx blamed religion for the complacentcy of humanity towards obvious injustice.

Yeah ... so what?


Then why did the USSR and China and every other "Socialist" country work so hard to abolish religion?

Because they were totalitarian regiems and religion was a threat to their hedgemony, it had nothing to do with socialism.


http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/le...ovarum_en.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html)

Is that the same vatican that makes celebasy a rule?
1 Thimothy 4:3
Or the one that supports nationalistic warfare?
Mathew 36:52
Micah 4:3
Iseah 2:4

Or the one that even calls someone holy father and makes him a religious leader
Mathew 23:9

I can go on and on, the Vatican is as christian as the USSR was communist.

But on that note, I did'nt want to read the whole thing, can you paraphrase it for me please?

[Bud Struggle]

give me an example? Also the USSR and maoist china and leninist regiems don't count, becuase they did'nt actually practice communism, read about materialism, its just a way of analysing history THATS IT. What has happened in the past is the only way I can judge Communism. Yea, there were little bursts of this and that, that seemed nice along the way but that's not what 99.999% of Communism has looked like.


Why not? Tell me why a system of common control of production and resources kicks out the option of religion. IT ALWAYS HAS.


Again, the USSR and China don't count, if they wern't commonly controled ITS NOT COMMUNISM OR EVEN SOCIALISM. I know what YOUR idea of Communism is--and it's pretty, I agree but it has never actually come to fruition in all the tries that Communism has gotten through Revolution--and even in the time it was tried--it was killed BY THE COMMUNISTS (among others.)


Because they were totalitarian regiems and religion was a threat to their hedgemony, it had nothing to do with socialism. I think that's what Communism looks like when applied to the real world. If t weren't for all of those failed attempts at Communism--and the fact that 75% of Communists here on RevLeft are Marxists of some sort, I might think that Anarchy might someday exist. Right now I just don't see that little bit of magic happening. No one would be happier than me if you could pull it off--but Brother Gacky, I just don't see it.


Is that the same vatican that makes celebasy a rule?
1 Thimothy 4:3
Or the one that supports nationalistic warfare?
Mathew 36:52
Micah 4:3
Iseah 2:4

Or the one that even calls someone holy father and makes him a religious leader
Mathew 23:9

I can go on and on, the Vatican is as christian as the USSR was communist.

But on that note, I did'nt want to read the whole thing, can you paraphrase it for me please?

Best for me not to discuss religion here--I always get warnings. I'm sorry I posted that. If you want to carry that on further we might go over into Religion.

[RGacky3]

What has happened in the past is the only way I can judge Communism. Yea, there were little bursts of this and that, that seemed nice along the way but that's not what 99.999% of Communism has looked like.

If it was'nt communism at all, then you can't judge it by that can you?


IT ALWAYS HAS.

Such as? The USSR or China was not common control, if you believe it was show me how it was, but if thats what your argueing your arguing that democracy kicks out common control, but ONLY when applied to the economy.


I know what YOUR idea of Communism is--and it's pretty, I agree but it has never actually come to fruition in all the tries that Communism has gotten through Revolution--and even in the time it was tried--it was killed BY THE COMMUNISTS (among others.)

Its not my idea of communism, its almost everyone that calls themselves communists.

The Leninsts also believed communism is what I believe but they were hypocrites, what they implimented was something compleatly different then what they advertised.

But again, if your arguing that communism was tried, then you have to argue that that LEnin implimented common control of the economy, i.e. democractic economy.


I think that's what Communism looks like when applied to the real world. If t weren't for all of those failed attempts at Communism--and the fact that 75% of Communists here on RevLeft are Marxists of some sort, I might think that Anarchy might someday exist. Right now I just don't see that little bit of magic happening. No one would be happier than me if you could pull it off--but Brother Gacky, I just don't see it.

If it IS communism applied then make that argument, HOW were they communist?

[Jazzratt]

Hardly capitalist. It is a mixture of anarchism and feudalism.

You don't know what either of those words mean. You may as well have described it as being a mixture of ice cream and upward, you'd have made just as much sense while maintaining the same level of accuracy.

[Zanthorus]

Hardly capitalist. It is a mixture of anarchism and feudalism.

That's absurd. Even by the most shallow definition of anarchism possible there is still a state in India hence it can't be "anarchist". As for Feudalism, well that's barely even a coherent concept except for maybe the Marxian definition of it as a certain mode of production involving the extraction of the surplus-value created by serfs by landlords. As far as I know serfdom doesn't exist in India.